Land Revenue Act | Revisional Powers U/S 15 Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time; Unexplained 20-Year Delay Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

Expounding on the mandate of Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act the Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 15 though not governed by a specific period of limitation, must be exercised within a reasonable period, and that entertaining stale claims would undermine certainty, finality, and settled rights of third parties.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while observing that

“... the absence of a prescribed period of limitation for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction does not confer unfettered or indefinite authority upon the concerned forum,” held that “such powers are inherently circumscribed by the requirement of being exercised within a reasonable time,” and that “even allegations of fraud do not grant an indefinite extension for the exercise of revisional powers; such jurisdiction must still be invoked within a reasonable period from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by four petitioners challenging an order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), whereby a Mutation was set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act.

The Mutation had come to be attested on December 9, 2004 and remained unassailed for a considerable period. Nearly twenty years later in 2021, respondent instituted revision proceedings before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) seeking interference with the mutation.

The record indicated that the predecessor-in-interest connected with the subject matter had not questioned the mutation during his lifetime, and that during the intervening period, third-party rights had come into existence with respect to the property in question. The mutation entries continued to remain in force during this period.

The Financial Commissioner, without addressing the question of delay, passed the impugned order setting aside the mutation. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Court's Observations:

The Court first noted that though no specific period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of revisional powers under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, it is well settled that such powers are required to be exercised within a reasonable period. The Court reproduced Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, which empowers the Financial Commissioner to call for records and pass orders, subject to the proviso requiring opportunity of hearing in matters affecting rights between private persons.

Relying on H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah (2025 SCC OnLine SC 54), the Court observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration but is based on principles of sound public policy and equity. The Court quoted, “No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

The Court found that the impugned exercise of revisional jurisdiction suffered from a fundamental infirmity in that it permitted reopening of a mutation which had attained finality and remained unquestioned for nearly two decades, without any satisfactory or bona fide explanation for the prolonged inaction. The impugned order did not reflect any consideration of this crucial aspect.

Citing Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsingh Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695, the Court held that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs. The Court observed,

“... Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”

The Court also referred to its own judgment in Ayub Gojar & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner (2018 (2) SLJ 992), wherein it was held that revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time, ordinarily within a period of three years and in no case beyond a period of five years even where fraud is alleged. The Court noted that the creation of third-party interests, passage of considerable time, and change of hands by subsequent bona fide transfers are factors that must be given due weight while exercising revisional powers.

The Court found that the Financial Commissioner had neither adverted to the question of delay nor recorded any finding as regards sufficiency of cause for entertaining the revision petition after nearly two decades. The Court also noted that the plea of fraud raised by respondent had not been substantiated by any cogent material on record, and that a mere bald allegation of fraud without specific particulars cannot be made the basis for unsettling a long-standing mutation.

The High Court thus held that the impugned exercise of revisional jurisdiction after an inordinate lapse of time of nearly twenty years, without recording compelling and cogent reasons and without considering the effect of passage of time on third-party rights, could not be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was quashed, and Mutation was restored.

Case Title: Ghulam Rasool Rather & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment