Back
SANJAY DHAR
Soli Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Taja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 06.08.2022 passed by Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Budgam, whereby mutation No.1080 under Section 4 and mutation No.1108 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land measuring 13 kanals and 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No.212 and 226 of estate Budgam Batpora have been set aside.
2. The petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent No.2 whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 3 happen to be the sisters of respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 happen to be the daughters of late Salam Dar, the erstwhile owner of the land measuring 13 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.212 and 226 of estate Budgam Batpora.
3. The case set up by the petitioner is that mutation No.1080 dated 09.11.1984 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and mutation No.1108 dated 24.08.1985 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the aforesaid land were attested in his favour to the knowledge of the private respondents and their deceased mother. It is submitted that the private respondents never questioned these mutations and after 35 years, respondent No.1 laid challenge to the aforesaid
The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals and upheld the decision to set aside mutations based on fraud.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument obtained through fraud is void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that belated appeals without sufficient cause can be rejected, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in exercising revisional power is limited.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to consider the aspects of limitation and the effect of a compromise decree on mutation orders under the Land Reve....
The court emphasized that findings based on incorrect co-sharer status and unjustified delay in appeals led to a miscarriage of justice, allowing the appeal and setting aside previous orders.
Deemed consent applies when heirs benefit from a mutation order and remain silent, barring later challenges after significant delays.
Limited scope of judicial review in correcting errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts; any order obtained through fraud is a nullity and can be questioned at any time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
