Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Prehlad Singh vs Union Territory Of J&Kand Others on 2 May, 2025

Author: Rajnesh Oswal

Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                               AT JAMMU
                                                 Reserved on   04.03.2025
                                                 Pronounced on 02.05.2025
WP(C) No. 1725/2024(O&M)
c/w
WP(C) No. 1482/2024(O&M)


Prehlad Singh                                   .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                     Through: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv.

                Vs
Union Territory of J&Kand others                          ..... Respondent(s)
                     Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Adv. vice
                              Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for Nos. 1 to 3
                              Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Adv for No. 4

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                               JUDGMENT

WP(C) No. 1482/2024

1. The petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2-Yuvraj Singh are

brothers of respondent No. 4. The dispute in the present petition is in

respect of Mutation No. 163 dated 06.04.2016 attested in favour of the

petitioner, respondent No. 4 and proforma respondent No. 2. The

respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against Mutation No. 163 before

the appellate authority in the month of December-2023 along with

application seeking condonation of delay by stating that the petitioner

in connivance with the proforma respondent No. 1-Tehsildar, Samba

got the aforesaid mutation attested at her back by virtue of which she

was held entitled to less than actual share, which she otherwise was

entitled to along with petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2. It was

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

asserted by the respondent No. 4 that the proforma respondent No. 1

knowingly that she was entitled to equal share in the estate, without

affording any opportunity of hearing to her, attested the mutation

impugned.

2. It was stated by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner had filed a suit

against her and proforma respondent No. 2 and when she received the

copy of the plaint and Mutation No. 163 dated 06.04.2016, she came to

know that the Mutation Officer had wrongly attested the mutation.

3. The petitioner objected to the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4

before respondent No. 3 by filing response to the appeal stating therein

that after the demise of Rukmani Devi, the property was inherited by

the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 in equal shares and the

share of respondent No. 4 was one-eighth. It was further stated that the

appellant has not only disposed of the land comprising survey No. 54

but also survey No. 80 measuring 1 Kanal in favour of Pooja Devi W/o.

Rajeshwar Singh and Rajni Devi w/o. Darshan Singh, but this fact has

not been disclosed by the appellant-respondent No. 4 herein in appeal

before the respondent No. 3. It was pleaded by the petitioner that

respondent No. 4 had levelled no allegations at the time of getting the

Fard Intikhab for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of Pooja

Devi, Rajni Devi and Soma Devi and she herself executed and got the

sale deed registered in favour of aforesaid vendees and the sale deed

was executed only on the basis of Mutation No. 163.

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Samba respondent

No. 3 herein vide order dated 11.06.2024 condoned the delay. The

petitioner has impugned order dated 11.06.2024 on the grounds that

respondent No. 4 had already disposed of one kanal of land comprising

khasra No. 80 in favour of Pooja Devi w/o Rajeshwar Singh and Rajni

Devi w/o Darshan Singh after obtaining Fard Intikhab Jamabandi from

the revenue authorities and as such, she was well aware that the

Mutation 163 was attested in favour of respondent No. 4 by the

proforma respondent No. 1 but she did not disclose the alienation of the

land comprising survey No. 80 in its appeal before respondent No. 3.

The respondent No. 4 again disposed of landed property comprising

survey No. 54 measuring10 marlas in favour of Soma Devi after

obtaining Fard Intikhab from the revenue agency on 27.11.2022 and as

such, she was well aware about the mutation impugned by her in the

appeal.

5. The respondent No. 4 has objected the petition preferred by the

petitioner on the ground that the above titled writ petition was filed on

27.06.2024 and interim order was passed on 01.07.2024 whereas the

petitioner had already appeared before respondent No. 3 and argued the

matter through his counsel and was well aware that the main appeal

stood decided by the appellate authority on 25.06.2024. It is stated by

the respondent No. 4 that she being a lady had no knowledge about the

attestation of impugned mutation by virtue of which, less share was

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

granted to her and when it came to her knowledge, she immediately

filed appeal before the competent authority.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record of the office of respondent No. 3 reveals that the

appeal was filed on 04.12.2023 before the appellate authority in respect

of the Mutation No. 163 attested on 06.04.2016. It was stated by the

appellant therein that the mutation of inheritance was attested at her

back. The respondent No. 4 in her appeal stated that she had disposed of

land measuring 10 marlas comprising khasra No. 54 to one Soma Devi

w/o. Mohinder Singh by way of a sale deed and she got the knowledge

of the mutation only after the suit was filed by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner in his response before the appellate authority had

specifically stated that the respondent No. 4 was having the knowledge

of the Mutation No. 163 (supra) as she had sold the land measuring 1

kanal to Pooja Devi and Rajni Devi and 10 marals to Soma Devi. She

executed the sale deed only after obtaining the Fard Intikhab Jamabandi

and her name was entered into the revenue record, pursuant to mutation

No. 163 impugned by the respondent No.4 and as such, she cannot be

heard to say that she was not aware of the mutation, when she after

obtaining the benefit of the impugned mutation sold the land.

9. The petitioner has placed on record the report of Patwari, substantiating

the alienation of not only 10 marlas of land in favour of Soma Devi, but

also 1 kanal of land comprising khasra No. 80 sold by respondent No. 4

to Pooja Devi and Rajni Devi.

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

10. The respondent No. 4 admittedly had not stated the alienation of land

measuring 1 kanal comprising khasra No. 80 in her appeal preferred

before respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has disposed of the

application for condonation of delay on 11.06.2024 in three lines, which

part of the order is extracted as under:

"that the matter of condonation of delay is argued during the Court proceedings and Court is convinced beyond doubt that appellant was not aware of the impugned order and has filed the instant appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge".

11. The reasons are the soul of the judgment and once the judgement sans

reasons, then the same cannot be sustained. A perusal of the order

impugned dated 11.06.2024 reveals that no reasons whatsoever have

been assigned by respondent No. 3 while condoning the delay except

that she was not aware of the impugned order and has filed the instant

appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge. The respondent No.3 has

not even bothered to reflect in the order as to when and how the

respondent No.4 acquired the knowledge. When the reasons are not

furnished by the adjudicating authority in its decision, it amounts to

non-application of mind. Hon‟ble Suprerme Court of India, after taking

note of its various earlier pronouncements in „CCT v. Shukla & Bros.,

(2010) 4 SCC 785', has held as under:

"23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts.

24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be.

25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons.

(emphasis added)

12. In „East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao', (2010) 7 SCC 678, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

"23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in

WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024

question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable."

(emphasis added)

13. The respondent No. 3 was required to consider the case of the petitioner

as well while deciding the application seeking condonation of delay,

because the petitioner had specifically pleaded that respondent No. 4

after getting the benefit of Mutation No. 163 had alienated 1 kanal and

10 marlas of land in favour of Pooja Devi, Rajni Devi and Soma Devi.

The respondent No. 3 was required to record reasons for arriving at a

conclusion that the appellant was not aware of the impugned order, and

she filed the appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the order

impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the same is set

aside.