Writ Court Cannot Examine Validity Of Revenue Mutations Unless Explicitly Challenged: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where mutations have not been challenged and have attained finality, the writ court cannot examine their validity or comment upon the manner in which they were attested.The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment of the writ court, which had set aside a mutation and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, while also making observations on earlier mutations that were not under challenge.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “Though the Senior Counsel for private respondents tried to persuade the court that procedure under section 41 of the Tenancy Act was not followed, as such, the mutation under section 104 is nullity, but the fact remains that the mutations were not challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents during his life time and even by the private respondents, as such, we are not inclined to accept this contention of the learned Senior Counsel and accordingly, this contention is rejected.The dispute pertained to agricultural land in respect of which a series of revenue mutations had been attested in the early 1970s. A protected tenant had surrendered tenancy rights in favour of the landowners, pursuant to which mutation No. 104 was attested. Subsequently, mutation No. 106 reflected possession of the owners as “Khud Kasht Malkan”, and mutation No. 115 recorded the tenant as an “unauthorised occupant.” Years later, mutation No. 221 was attested, declaring the tenant as prospective owner under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. This mutation was set aside by the Director Land Records, and the order was upheld by the Tribunal. The private respondents challenged the Tribunal's order before the writ court. The writ court, while remitting the matter for fresh consideration, made extensive observations regarding the manner in which earlier mutations (Nos. 104, 106, 115) had been attested and questioned their validity.This judgment was challenged in an appeal.The High Court framed the central issue as whether the writ court could examine the validity of mutations that had never been challenged by the parties. The Court noted that mutation Nos. 104, 106 and 115 had admittedly not been challenged either by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents during his lifetime or by the respondents themselves. As such, these mutations had attained finality.The Court observed: “It is an admitted case that the private respondents never challenged the mutation Nos. 104, 106 and 115…” On this basis, the Court held that once such mutations had attained finality, their validity could not be indirectly questioned in writ proceedings.It further held: “In the absence of challenge to mutation Nos. 104, 106 and 115… the learned writ court ought not to have dealt and commented upon the mode and manner in which these mutations were attested.” The Court emphasised that the scope of the writ petition was limited to examining the correctness of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Director of Land Records, and not to reopen settled mutations.The Bench also found that the writ court had proceeded on an incorrect premise by treating the earlier mutations as part of the implementation of the Agrarian Reforms Act, when in fact they arose from the surrender of tenancy.It further noted that the writ court itself had not conclusively held the earlier mutations to be invalid, but merely observed that “the possibility of manipulation… was not ruled out,” which did not justify setting aside or commenting upon those mutations.Additionally, the Court observed that proceedings relating to the recovery of possession were still pending before the competent authority, and therefore, the controversy regarding possession was yet to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.The High Court held that the writ court had exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting upon and effectively reopening mutations that were never under challenge and had attained finality.Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the writ court and dismissed the writ petition. It clarified that the pending proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be decided independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any prior observations.The Court further observed that dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the private respondents from availing appropriate remedies in accordance with law in respect of the mutations.Case Title: Naresh Kumar & Others v. J&K Special Tribunal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 144Click here to read/download Judgment

Writ Court Cannot Examine Validity Of Revenue Mutations Unless Explicitly Challenged: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags