The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a mutation due to the petitioner's failure to justify a delay of over 39 years in filing an appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely legal remedies.

JUDGMENT :

01. Petitioner through the medium of the instant petition which has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Poonch exercising powers of Commissioner under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, as appellate authority, in File No. ARA/1373/2023 titled “Mohd Bashir vs Mohd Rafiq” by way of an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in filing an appeal against Mutation No. 644 dated 25.04.1984 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act along with appeal, has been rejected.

02. Before proceeding further in the matter and to clinch the controversy in question, it is apposite to give brief resume of the facts, which, in nutshell, are summarized as under:-

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

03. The case, as projected by the petitioner in the instant petition is that Mutation No. 644 dated 25.04.1984 under Section 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 was attested by Tehsildar Surankote, whereby for land comprising Survey No. 1842 measuring 04 kanals situated in Village Fazlabad, the respondent Mohd Rafiq was recorded as owner. It was against the entry of Girdawari of Kharief 1971 wherein the column of cultivation the names of Habiba, Qadara, Subhana, Dulla were recorded.

04. It is pleaded that after the demise of the petitioner's father, his mother got remarried to Qadara and being step son of Qadara, the petitioner is entitled to the estate of said Qadara. Since there was no male issue of Qadara other than the petitioner, as his daughters had already married, there exists no lawful justification for the attestation of the mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in favor of the respondent to the exclusion of the petitioner, it was illegal per se. An appeal against the mutation was filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, who in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to present ‘sufficient reasons’ to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

05. It is further pleaded that the impugned order is liable to be quashed because the Mutation No. 644 with regard to the land in question was attested at the back of the petitioner, which was in his cultivating possession since the life time of Qadara, who had also made a ‘Will’ in favour of the petitioner and the said land continues to be in cultivating possession of the petitioner till date.

06. It is a specific case of the petitioner that because of sufficient opportunity of being heard, in support of the application for condonation of delay, was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the relief, as prayed for, as the discretion exercised by the authority below in rejecting the application for condonation of delay is neither fair nor proper.

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner having continuously cultivating possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 1842 measuring 04 Kanals situated at Village Fazlabad since the life time of the step father of the petitioner, namely, Qadara, who had also made a ‘Will’ in respect of the aforesaid land in his favour, but the respondent, who is a influential person, by his conspiracy got the mutation attested in his favour with respect to the aforesaid land under Section 8. It has been further argued that the mutation of the land in question was attested at the back of the petitioner, who after passage of many years, came to know that the respondent contemplated to take forcible possession of the land from the petitioner on the basis of the mutation which has been attested under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act by Tehsildar Surankote.

08. It is further argued that the procedure prescribed under Agrarian Reforms Rules particularly Rule 14 laying down