Minority During Attestation Cannot Explain Inaction For Decades After Attaining Majority: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Mutation Challenge
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that merely being a minor when a mutation was attested cannot, by itself, explain complete inaction for several decades after attaining majority.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that while the petitioner's minority, residence outside the Valley and prevailing circumstances could constitute relevant considerations for explaining delay, they could not collectively account for an unexplained period of more than five decades. The Court accordingly dismissed a writ petition challenging the Mutation attested in 1970.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Mrs. Kareena Jamwal, alias Zulikha Hussain, seeking quashing of an order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, whereby the revisional authority had set aside orders condoning the delay in challenging the mutation.
The petitioner claimed that she and the private respondents were legal heirs of late Thakur Raghbeer Singh, who had left behind two sons, three daughters and his widow.
She contended that the Mutation attested in 1970, had been recorded in favour of some of the private respondents, excluding her from the estate. According to her, the mutation had been attested behind her back and without notice.
The petitioner asserted that she was a minor when the mutation was attested, her date of birth being September 4, 1954. She further claimed that she had remained outside the Union Territory for a considerable period and was unaware of the mutation.
According to her case, she acquired knowledge of the mutation only in November 2022, when she approached the revenue authorities seeking partition of the property. She thereafter obtained a certified copy of the mutation and challenged it before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
The SDM condoned the delay. The Additional Commissioner, Kashmir, subsequently upheld that order. However, the Financial Commissioner, in revision, set aside both orders and upheld the mutation, leading to the present writ petition.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that she could not have effectively challenged the mutation while she was a minor. It was further submitted that she subsequently remained outside the Valley and, owing to the prevailing circumstances, could not approach the competent authority within time.
Court's Observations:
Upon considering the contentions raised the court noted that the mutation was attested on December 7, 1970, whereas the challenge was instituted only in 2023, more than five decades later. Justice Nargal held that the issue of limitation was therefore required to be considered at the threshold.
The Court observed that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation, but such approach could not be stretched to condone an inordinate and unexplained delay as a matter of course. The Court said,
“The length of delay, the nature of explanation furnished, the conduct of the party, the rights that may have accrued in the interregnum and the prejudice likely to be caused to the opposite parties are all relevant considerations while exercising such discretion.”
Applying these principles, the Court held that the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner could not explain the entire period of delay.
“Even assuming the petitioner's minority to be established, the same could not, by itself, explain the complete inaction for several decades after she attained majority”, the bench remarked.
The Court added that the plea of lack of knowledge required a “cogent and convincing explanation covering the entire period of delay”, which was not forthcoming.
The Court also examined the reasoning adopted by the Financial Commissioner. The revisional authority had noted that the petitioner and the other appellants were sisters of the beneficiaries under the mutation and had claimed ignorance of the mutation for more than five decades.
It had observed that the death of the estate-holder and devolution of his estate could not reasonably have remained unknown to the legal heirs for such an extended period.
The Financial Commissioner had further observed that even if the prevailing law-and-order situation in the Valley were accepted as an explanation, it could at best account for the period after 1989 and the years of disturbance. No explanation, however, had been furnished for the period between 1970 and 1989 or for the subsequent period when conditions had improved.
The High Court found this approach consistent with the principles governing condonation of delay.
Another circumstance considered by the Court was the passage of more than five decades during which the mutation remained operative.
The Financial Commissioner had taken note of a transaction concerning land measuring 110 kanals stated to have been executed in 2003 in favour of Mst. Farida. The High Court observed that reopening a revenue entry after such a prolonged period could have consequences for persons who may have altered their position on the basis of the existing record.
The Court thus held that the passage of time assumed significance not merely because of limitation, but also because rights and interests could have intervened during the period of inaction.
“…The intervening period assumes significance, particularly when the respondents have placed on record the circumstance of a transaction relating to the property having taken place in the year 2003. A belated reopening of such a long-standing revenue entry may have consequences for rights and interests that have intervened during the period of inaction”, reasoned Justice Nargal.
Concluding that the petitioner's explanation did not satisfactorily account for the entire period between the 1970 mutation and the 2023 challenge, the Court held that her minority and subsequent residence outside the Valley could, at best, explain certain periods but could not justify the prolonged inaction extending over several decades.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Financial Commissioner's order upholding Mutation was sustained.
Case Title: Mrs. Kareena Jamwal (Alias Zulikha Hussain) v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326