The authority to cancel mutation orders is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

WP(C) No. 2360/2021

1. The petitioners through medium of the present writ petition have challenged order No. DCK/SQ/2021-22/1090-93 dated 17.07.2021 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has set aside mutation Nos. 171, 422, 423 and 440 of village Chak Sagta, Tehsil and District, Kathua and restored the land measuring 58 kanals under khasra No. 310/24, situated at village Chak Sagta, Tehsil and District Kathua to the State.

2. According to the petitioners, in terms of mutation No. 457, the ownership rights in respect of land measuring 4 kanals under khasra No. 27 min, situated at village Sakta Chack, Tehsil and District Kathua were attested in favour of the petitioners. Similarly vide mutation No. 171, the petitioners were recorded as tenants at will in respect of land measuring 01 kanal 18 marlas under Khasra No. 24 min, situated in the same village in terms of Government Order No. LD-6/C of 1958, whereafter vide mutation Nos. 422/423, the petitioners were recorded as owners in respect of the aforesaid land in terms of Government order No. S-432 of 1966. It has been submitted that by virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has declared all the above-referred mutation orders as void ab-initio and restored the land in question to the State.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 on several grounds, but the main grounds, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioners has laid emphasis during the course of arguments, are that respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass the impugned order, as neither he had any power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in respect of the mutations attested by the Tehsildar, nor did he had power to review the said mutation orders. It has been further contended that even otherwise, it was not open to respondent No. 2 to cancel the mutations attested in favour of the petitioners without hearing them.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have taken a stand that illegal entries in the revenue record were made in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners on the basis of illegal mutation orders. It has been submitted that respondent No. 2, while preparing parawise reply/objections in another writ petition bearing OWP No. 549/2019 filed by the petitioner-Om Parkash against the respondents, came to know about the aforesaid illegalities/irregularities, which compelled him to pass the impugned order in exercise of his administrative powers. According to the respondents, there was no requirement of adhering to the principle of natural justice before cancelling the mutation orders passed in favour of the petitioners and that respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua being the head of the Revenue Officers of the District, was well within his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order so as to correct the illegalities/irregularities.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and record of the case.

6. It is not in dispute that mutation Nos. 171, 422, 423 and 440 of village Sakta Chack Tehsil and District Kathua were attested in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners and the said attestation was undertaken by the concerned Tehsildar. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of the impugned order, the aforesaid mutation orders have been set aside by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, thereby restoring the land measuring 58 kanals under khasra Nos. 310/24, situated at the aforesaid village to the State. Two issues that are required to be determined are that as to whether respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua was competent to cancel these mutation orders without there being any application or appeal from any interested person before him and secondly, whether the mutation orders attested in favour of the petitioners could have been set at naught w