Revisional Powers Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time Even In Fraud Cases; Merits Cannot Justify Gross Delay: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) which had reopened and annulled revenue mutations after more than four decades.Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while allowing a writ petition, held that revisional powers whether invoked in cases of fraud or otherwise must be exercised within a reasonable period, and that merits of a case cannot be used as a justification to condone gross delay.Underscoring that law of limitation is founded on public policy and certainty, and that belated interference, especially where third-party rights have crystallised, leads to legal chaos rather than justice the bench referenced Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsingh Rao, reported in (2015) to reproduce, “… 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.”Background of the Case:The dispute arose from a challenge to an order in 2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), whereby several revenue mutations dating back to 1972, 1981 and 1988 including ownership mutations under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and subsequent gift-based mutations were set aside. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after the Financial Commissioner entertained appeals and revisions filed in 2017 by private respondents nearly 40 years after the original mutations were attested. Notably, the Financial Commissioner condoned this extraordinary delay and proceeded to decide the matter on merits, despite recording that the appellants were aware of the mutations at least since 1983.The petitioner through counsel Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq, contended that the appeals and revisions were hopelessly barred by limitation, that there was suppression of material facts by the private respondents, and that the Financial Commissioner had violated binding directions of the Division Bench to decide limitation as a threshold issue.Court's Examination of Limitation and Delay:Adjudicating the matter Justice Wani undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 and the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, noting that although revisional powers are wide, applications invoking such jurisdiction are governed by limitation.The Court found that the private respondent had participated in the attestation of an inheritance mutation in 1983, wherein he expressly acknowledged the very mutations he later claimed ignorance of. The Court also took note of eviction proceedings initiated as early as 1976 and 1985, during which the impugned mutations were produced, thereby conclusively establishing prior knowledge.In this backdrop, the Court observed that the plea of ignorance raised decades later was factually untenable and legally unsustainable.While dealing with the argument that the mutations were fraudulent and therefore could be challenged at any time, the Court rejected such a proposition, reiterating that by 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.Justice Wani stressed that even in cases involving fraud, the revisional authority must act within a reasonable period from the date of discovery of fraud, and must specifically plead and establish when and how such fraud was discovered.The High Court took serious exception to the approach adopted by the Financial Commissioner, who, despite recording a finding that the plea of ignorance was incorrect, proceeded to condone delay by relying upon the merits of the case.The Court held, “The appeals/revisions ought to have been dismissed as being barred by limitation without going into the merits of the case.”It further reiterated the settled principle that limitation is not a mere technicality, and that courts and authorities must decide the issue of delay independently, before examining the merits.Justice Wani also highlighted that third-party rights had been created through registered gift deeds as far back as 1988, and possession had remained undisturbed for decades. In such circumstances, reopening settled entries after an inordinate delay was held to be wholly impermissible, he stated. The Court further observed that creation of third-party rights, passage of considerable time, and bona fide transfers are critical factors that must weigh heavily against entertaining stale claims.The High Court further pointed out that earlier Division Bench directions had expressly required the Financial...

Revisional Powers Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time Even In Fraud Cases; Merits Cannot Justify Gross Delay: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags