The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of availing the statutory remedy under the Land Revenue Act before approaching the court and the principle that a litigant cannot take contradictory stands in different courts.

JUDGMENT :

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 314/2024 titled, “Sukhdev Singh & Anr. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner.

2. The appellants-petitioners filed WP(C) No. 314/2024 challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 2 vide order No. DCJ/Rdr/2023-24/360-63 Dated 03.02.2024 by virtue of which the mutation No. 42 dated 03.10.2005 has been set-aside.

3. The order so passed by the Respondent No. 2 was challenged in the Writ Petition by the appellant-petitioner, broadly, on the following grounds:

(i) The order impugned is otherwise against the law, facts and without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners were never heard by the respondent no.2 while passing the order impugned. The order impugned which is the administrative action on the part of the respondents who were not competent to cancel the mutation. Since the mutation was attested by the Naib Tehsildar, the enabling provision for attestation of the mutation is the Standing Order 23-A, instruction no. 74,which envisages that mutation of transfer by registered deed may be sanctioned, provided that the transfer is found to have been actually made and acted upon, the registration department will send monthly to the Tehsildar, particular of all registered deed which purport transfer of agriculture land. Since the mutation was attested on 03.10.2005, but never questioned the possession of the petitioners who continuously remained in their cultivating possession, therefore, the respondent no. 2 has committed an error in passing the order impugned so as to cancel the mutation. The respondent no. 2 who was not competent to pass an administrative order, where the mutation has been cancelled without the cancellation of the sale deed, therefore, the order impugned is bad and liable to be quashed.

(ii) The order impugned is otherwise bad, the respondent no. 2 who was not competent to review the order of mutation in view of Section 13 of the Land Revenue Act by exercising the administrative powers, Section 13 of the Land Revenue Act, which envisages that a revenue officer may, either of his own motion or on the application of any party interest, review, modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by himself or any of his predecessor in office, provided, when (the board), a Divisional Commissioner or collector think it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when revenue officer of class below that of collector purposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any of his predecessor in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the revenue officer in whose control he is immediately subject. The respondent no.2 was not competent to review the order which is not passed by him unless the sanction of a revenue official is obtained as held by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled Mohd Yousuf Vs Director Consolidation. It is also mandatory that the order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order, thus the order impugned is bad and liable to be quashed.”

4. The learned Writ Court, vide its judgment impugned in this appeal, dismissed the writ petition holding that:

“Thus, in presence of the aforesaid statutory remedy available to the petitioners this court is not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction and allow the machinery created by the provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 to be bye-passed. Resultantly, the petition on this count is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed.”

5. Mr. G. S. Thakur Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the appellants/petitioners were never heard by the Respondent No 2 while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. He further submits that the R