Govt Order Cannot Supersede Statutory Notification Altering Tehsil Jurisdiction Under Land Revenue Act: J&K&L High Court

The Court emphasied that territorial limits of revenue administrative units defined through a statutory notification under the Land Revenue Act cannot be altered merely through a government order and added that any such change must be effected through a statutory notification issued under Section 5 of the Act.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir challenging Government Order of 2018, which directed inclusion of Revenue Village Dhanmasta earlier forming part of Tehsil Pogal Paristan with headquarters at Ukhral into Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo.

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary observed that territorial limits of administrative units once fixed through statutory notification cannot be altered through a mere administrative order. He noted,

“The Government order cannot supersede a statutory order and if at all the Government was interested to make any change, it was incumbent upon the Government to examine the matter on various factors and then pass a statutory order in terms of Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act.”

Background:

The petitioners challenged the government order directing inclusion of Village Dhanmasta into Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo. They contended that the village had earlier been included within Tehsil Pogal Paristan with headquarters at Ukhral pursuant to a Government Order which was subsequently formalised through Notification SRO 443 of 2014 issued under Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act.

According to the petitioners, the statutory notification had reorganised administrative units in District Ramban and included Village Dhanmasta within Patwar Halqa Panchal under Niabat Ukhral (Khas) of Tehsil Pogal Paristan. They asserted that the impugned order order issued in 2018 sought to shift the village into Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo without any statutory notification.

The petitioners also contended that geographically the village was closer to Ukhral than Ramsoo and that the residents would face significant inconvenience in accessing public services if the change was implemented. They submitted that several hamlets lacked road connectivity and that the inhabitants would have to travel longer distances to reach the Tehsil headquarters at Ramsoo.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the decision formed part of administrative restructuring undertaken following recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by the Government. They submitted that the impugned order defining the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created Tehsil Ramsoo had been issued after consideration of administrative requirements.

Court's Observation:

The Court examined the statutory framework governing alteration of territorial limits of administrative units under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996. It noted that under Section 5 of the Act, the Government is empowered to issue notifications altering or defining the limits of districts, tehsils, and other revenue administrative units. The Court observed that the Government had earlier exercised this statutory power through issuance of SRO 443 in 2014.

Through the said notification, the court noted that several administrative units in District Ramban were reorganised and the notification created new sub-divisions including Ramsoo, Banihal and Gool and constituted new tehsils including Khari, Rajgarh, Batote, Gool and Pogal Paristan with headquarters at Ukhral.

The Court observed that by virtue of this SRO Tehsil Pogal Paristan was constituted with Niabats Ramsoo (existing), Ukhral (Khas) (existing), and Senabathi Paristan forming part of the said tehsil. Revenue villages Ukhral, Panchal, Phagmulla and Dhanmasta were included within Patwar Halqa Panchal.

Thus, the Court recorded that Village Dhanmasta stood included in Tehsil Pogal Paristan, Niabat Ukhral (Khas) and Patwar Halqa Panchal pursuant to the statutory notification which had been duly published and implemented.

The Court further noted that another Government order of 2018 subsequently directed that, pending issuance of a formal notification under Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, the Tehsildar Ramsoo would exercise jurisdiction over areas comprising Niabat Ramsoo and Niabat Neel including Village Dhanmasta.

Referring to the statutory scheme, the Court held that once territorial limits of administrative units had been defined through a notification issued under Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, such limits could only be altered through another statutory notification.

The Court also examined the contention regarding convenience of the inhabitants. It observed that while determining jurisdiction and headquarters of administrative units such as Patwar Halqa, Niabat or Tehsil, the Government must consider factors including geographical contiguity, topography and accessibility for the local population.

Relying on the decision of a Division Bench in Haji Mohd. Ishaq & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., the Court noted that decisions regarding administrative units that directly affect public interaction must consider the convenience of the people. The Court observed that residents of Village Dhanmasta would be required to travel a longer distance to reach Tehsil Ramsoo and, in many cases, would first have to reach Ukhral before proceeding further. It held that these factors had not been properly considered while issuing the impugned order.

The Court further held that the impugned government order had been issued without proper application of mind and in the teeth of the earlier statutory notification issued under the Land Revenue Act.

The Court thus quashed Government Order of 2018 insofar as it directed inclusion of Revenue Village Dhanmasta into Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo and directed the Government to examine the matter afresh and, if any change in jurisdiction was considered necessary, to take appropriate action in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Land Revenue Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the inhabitants of Village Dhanmasta.

Appearances:

Petitioners: RKS Thakur, Anandita Thakur

Respondents: Nazia Fazal (for Sr. AAG)

Case Title: Omesh Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment