Revisional Jurisdiction Must Be Exercised Timely; Financial Commissioner's Order Overturned
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed an order by the Financial Commissioner Revenue that sought to reopen a mutation case after nearly two decades. The High Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe, even in the absence of a specific limitation period.
The case involved a mutation entry, No. 4813 of Estate KP Bagh, Srinagar, which was originally attested on December 9, 2004. This entry remained unchallenged until February 24, 2021, when a revision petition was filed by respondent No. 4. The Financial Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, set aside the mutation on May 25, 2023.
Petitioners Ghulam Rasool Rather and others, represented by Advocate Mr. Zahid Khan, challenged the Financial Commissioner's decision in the High Court. The petitioners argued that the revision was entertained after an unreasonable delay of nearly 20 years without sufficient cause or an application for condonation of delay. They contended that the revisional authority failed to justify the delay and overlooked the principle of timeliness, which is crucial even when a specific limitation is not prescribed.
The High Court, presided by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, found merit in the petitioners' arguments. It cited several precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, underscoring that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time to avoid unsettling long-standing rights and creating legal uncertainty.
The court noted that the Financial Commissioner's order disrupted settled rights and allowed the revival of stale claims, contrary to the principles of finality and equity. The judgment highlighted that mere allegations of fraud without strict proof could not justify such a belated exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court concluded that the Financial Commissioner's order lacked compelling reasons for reopening the mutation after such an extensive delay and failed to consider the intervening third-party rights and changes. As a result, the court quashed the order dated May 25, 2023, restoring the original mutation entry No. 4813.
This ruling reinforces the importance of timeliness in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, ensuring that legal processes do not remain indefinitely open to challenge, thereby maintaining certainty in legal and property rights.
Bottom line:-
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act must be exercised within a reasonable period, even in cases involving allegations of fraud, and prolonged delay without sufficient explanation renders such exercise impermissible.
Statutory provision(s):
Land Revenue Act, Section 15
