Mutation Attested In Violation Of Agrarian Reforms Act Procedure Can Be Examined In Revision: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had interfered with mutation proceedings and directed reconsideration of the matter after examining the legality of the mutation process.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal underscored the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements governing mutation proceedings, observing that “attesting a mutation contrary to the provisions prescribed for attestation of such mutations does involve a question of law, which can be examined by the revisional authority.”

Background:

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashment of an order passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal. Through the writ petition, they sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the Tribunal's order which had interfered with mutation proceedings relating to land governed under the Agrarian Reforms Act.

The dispute pertained to a mutation under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and another mutation under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioners contended that the mutations had been validly attested and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a challenge to those proceedings after a long lapse of time.

It was further argued that the concerned parties had themselves participated in the mutation proceedings and had appended their signatures to the mutation orders. According to the petitioners, the challenge raised before the revisional authority was therefore not maintainable and the Special Tribunal had wrongly interfered with the mutations.

The respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the mutations were not conducted in accordance with the statutory procedure and that the proceedings had been carried out in an illegal and arbitrary manner, warranting interference by the revisional authority.

Court's Observations:

While examining the matter, Justice Nargal analysed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Agrarian Reforms Act, particularly in situations where the legality of mutation proceedings is questioned.

The Court noted that the revisional authority had recorded findings indicating serious procedural irregularities in the attestation of the mutations. In particular, the Tribunal found that the mutation proceedings had not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Agrarian Reforms Rules and Standing Order 23-A governing mutation attestation.

The Court observed that mutation proceedings under the Agrarian Reforms Act are required to be conducted in the village where the land is situated and in the presence of the interested parties. The requirement of conducting mutation proceedings on spot, the Court noted, is intended to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

Emphasising the statutory scheme, the Court reproduced the procedural requirements governing mutation attestation and observed that the law mandates that the mutation order and the record accompanying it must reflect that adequate steps were taken to secure the presence of the concerned parties.

The Court further observed that the record revealed that the mutations in question had been attested at the headquarters rather than in the village where the land was located. Such a practice, the Court held, was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Agrarian Reforms Rules and Standing Order 23-A.

Highlighting the legal significance of such irregularities, the Court held that where mutation proceedings are conducted in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure, the legality of those proceedings becomes a question of law. Justice Nargal observed,

“Attesting a mutation contrary to the provisions prescribed for attestation of such mutations does involve a question of law, which can be examined by the revisional authority.”

The Court also stressed that mutation proceedings are not to be treated as routine administrative formalities. Instead, they must be conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory framework to safeguard the rights of interested parties. In this regard, the Court noted,

“Attestation of mutation is not a routine matter. It should not be carried out in a casual manner and must strictly adhere to the statutory procedure governing mutation proceedings.”

The Court therefore held that the revisional authority was justified in examining whether the mutation proceedings had been conducted in accordance with law.

In light of the findings recorded by the revisional authority and the procedural irregularities noted in the mutation proceedings, the High Court held that interference by the revisional authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act was legally permissible. The Court concluded that where mutation proceedings are conducted in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure, the revisional authority is competent to examine the legality of such proceedings and take appropriate action.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Special Tribunal and upheld its direction requiring examination of the legality of the mutation proceedings.

Appearances:

Mr. R.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Assisting Counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior AAG for the State.

Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the Respondents.

Case Title: Bansi Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to Read/Download the judgment.