*Restores 20 yr old mutation, sets aside FCR order
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 4: Holding that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction after an inordinate lapse of time defeats the principles of reasonableness, finality and legal certainty, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the Financial Commissioner Revenue’s order setting aside a mutation that had attained finality in 2004 and remained unchallenged until 2021.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Ghulam Rasool Rather and others against an order dated May 25, 2023 through which the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) had set aside Mutation No. 4813 of Estate KP Bagh, Srinagar, attested on December 9, 2004, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act.
The High Court restored the mutation, holding that the revisional authority had entertained a challenge after nearly two decades without recording any satisfaction regarding the delay or assigning compelling reasons for reopening a concluded matter.
The mutation had been attested on December 9, 2004 and remained unassailed for a considerable period. The revision petition seeking interference with the mutation was instituted before the Financial Commissioner only on February 24, 2021, reflecting a lapse of nearly twenty years from the date of attestation.
The petitioners argued that although no specific limitation period is prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, such powers are nevertheless required to be exercised within a reasonable period. It was further submitted that during the intervening period, the property had changed several hands and valuable third-party rights had accrued, aspects which were ignored by the revisional authority.
Examining Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, the High Court observed that the absence of a prescribed limitation period does not confer unfettered or indefinite authority upon a revenue forum to reopen concluded matters at its own discretion. “The law is well settled that such powers are required to be exercised within a reasonable period, and the concept of reasonableness acts as an inbuilt limitation on the exercise of such jurisdiction”, the High Court added.
The High Court found that the impugned order neither disclosed compelling circumstances justifying exercise of jurisdiction after such a prolonged period nor reflected any consideration of the effect of passage of time.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in H Guruswamy Versus A Krishnaiah, the High Court emphasized that limitation is not merely a technical consideration but is founded on principles of sound public policy and equity. Stating that no litigant can be kept under perpetual uncertainty, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observation that no court should keep the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.
Justice Nargal held that by entertaining a revision after an extraordinary lapse of time, the settled position flowing from the mutation had been rendered uncertain and exposed to perpetual challenge.
Such an approach, the High Court said, undermines the doctrine of finality and runs contrary to the principles of public policy and equity underlying the law of limitation.
Third-party rights cannot be trampled Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the High Court observed that intervening delay often results in creation of third-party rights, which cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of discretionary powers when no cogent explanation for the delay is available.
The High Court found that the mutation had remained operative for a long period during which rights flowing from it stood recognized in revenue records and were acted upon. It also recorded that substantial rights had accrued and third-party interests had come into existence during the intervening period, yet the revisional authority failed to consider these crucial aspects before interfering with the mutation.
Justice Nargal observed that the plea of fraud raised by the respondent had not been substantiated by any cogent material on record. “A mere bald allegation of fraud, without specific particulars and supporting evidence, cannot be made the basis for unsettling a long-standing mutation,” the judgment stated.
Rejecting the argument that the Financial Commissioner had merely passed a remand order directing de novo consideration, the High Court held that such a direction effectively amounted to indirectly reviving a time-barred claim and this defeated the principle of finality and encouraged avoidable litigation.
The High Court further held that the revisional authority failed to consider the doctrine of laches and acquiescence, under which a person who remains indolent for an extended period despite having an opportunity to assert rights cannot later revive stale claims to the prejudice of others.
Concluding that the impugned order suffered from legal as well as procedural improprieties, the High Court quashed the Financial Commissioner’s order dated May 25, 2023 and directed that Mutation No. 4813 dated December 9, 2004 shall stand restored.
The High Court observed that any attempt to exercise revisional jurisdiction after an inordinate and unexplained lapse of time, particularly beyond the ordinarily accepted period of three to five years, cannot be sustained in law and that principles of reasonableness, finality and legal certainty must prevail.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
