Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition challenging an inheritance mutation attested nearly three decades ago, holding that disputes arising out of succession, private settlement and land mutation between family members fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution .
The petition, filed by legal heirs of late Mukhti and Qadir Ganie, sought quashing of Mutation No. 267 dated January 30, 1995, along with orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) rejecting their revision and review petitions.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, however, ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable, suffered from procedural defects and involved seriously disputed questions of fact. “Writ jurisdiction is intended for enforcement of public law rights and statutory duties and cannot be invoked to adjudicate private inheritance disputes between individuals”, the High Court said, adding “since the sole contesting respondent was a private individual and no State authority was impleaded, the petition was held to be inherently defective”.
Justice Nargal emphasized that although Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs to any person, such power can only be exercised where the respondent is under a public or statutory obligation, which was conspicuously absent in the present case.
The High Court further held that no effective adjudication was possible as the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) whose orders were under challenge was not impleaded as a party. An order passed in absence of the authority which issued the impugned decision would be unenforceable, the High Court noted.
Rejecting reliance placed on Supreme Court judgments relating to tribunals, the High Court clarified that the Financial Commissioner functions as a statutory revenue authority, not a tribunal, and therefore must be arrayed as a necessary party.
The judgment records that the case involved multiple hotly contested factual issues, including existence and validity of a private family settlement, knowledge and acceptance of mutation entries, distribution of land across Budgam and Baramulla districts, previous civil and revenue litigation and alleged suppression of material facts
Such issues, the High Court held, require evidence and trial, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings. The Court also upheld the findings of the Financial Commissioner that the revision petition was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly 25 years. It ruled that limitation is a question of law which authorities are duty-bound to examine suo motu, even if not argued by parties.
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, the High Court held that entertaining such stale claims would unsettle settled rights and amount to jurisdictional error. The High Court found no perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error in the orders dismissing the revision and review petitions. It reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a forum for rehearing and that judicial review does not convert the High Court into an appellate authority over revenue decisions.
Highlighting the discretionary and equitable nature of writ jurisdiction, the High Court held that the conduct of the petitioners—marked by delay, repeated litigation and selective challenge to mutations—did not warrant any relief.
Concluding that the dispute was purely private, time-barred, procedurally defective and unsuitable for writ adjudication, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
