Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Mohd Bashir, S/o Khizra – Appellant
Versus
. Union Territory Of J&k Through Commissioner/secretary Department Of Revenue – Respondent
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
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 ....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review, the application of the law of limitation with full rigour, and the importance of considering the circumstances and record in condoning de....
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
Failure to record reasons for condoning inordinate unexplained delay violates natural justice; constitutes jurisdictional error warranting writ interference under Article 226 despite alternate remedy....
The court established that the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
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
