J&K Land Revenue Act | Power To Set Aside Mutation Quasi-Judicial In Nature, No Such Administrative Power Vested With Dy Commissioner: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a Deputy Commissioner has no power to set aside mutation orders passed by a Tehsildar, highlighting that such power is quasi-judicial and requires adherence to principles of natural justice.Citing various provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“I am afraid, there is no such administrative power...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a Deputy Commissioner has no power to set aside mutation orders passed by a Tehsildar, highlighting that such power is quasi-judicial and requires adherence to principles of natural justice.
Citing various provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“I am afraid, there is no such administrative power vested with the Deputy Commissioner that would give him jurisdiction to set aside the mutation orders passed by the Tehsildar. The power to attest a mutation as also the power to set aside the mutation, is quasi judicial in nature. The said power can never be termed as an administrative power of the Revenue Officer”.
Five petitioners had challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had set aside four mutation orders pertaining to land measuring 58 kanals. The petitioners claimed ownership rights in the land based on the mutations.
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to overturn the mutations, which were attested by the Tehsildar, a subordinate revenue officer. They further contended that they were not provided an opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed.
The respondents, on the other hand, justified the Deputy Commissioner's action by claiming that the mutations in favour of the petitioners were illegal. They argued that the Deputy Commissioner, as the head of revenue officers in the district, had the administrative power to rectify such irregularities.
Highlighting the quasi-judicial nature of the power to attest and annul mutation orders, Justice Dhar emphasised adherence to procedural fairness and statutory provisions.
Citing sections of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act the bench delineated the hierarchy of Revenue Officers and procedures for review and revision of their decisions. The court underscored that the Deputy Commissioner, as a superior Revenue Officer, did not possess inherent administrative powers to unilaterally overturn mutation orders without following due process.
Commenting on the contention of the respondents that Deputy Commissioner Kathua had only exercised his administrative powers Justice Dhar said,
“The said power can never be termed as an administrative power of the Revenue Officer. This power is to be exercised by the Revenue Officers strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the J&K Land Revenue Act and that too after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party by adhering to the principles of natural justice”.
Observing that the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua had adopted a novel approach by exercising powers of review in respect of the orders passed by the Tehsildar, who is a subordinate Revenue Officer the court added that even this had been done without putting the affected party to notice.
“The manner in which respondent No. 2 has proceeded to set at naught the mutation orders attested in favour of the petitioners, clearly exhibits arbitrariness on his part”, the court remarked.
In view of these observations, the orders were set aside by the court.
Case Title: Om Prakash Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 47