The court upheld the dismissal of writ petitions due to the petitioner's failure to explain a significant delay in challenging mutation orders, emphasizing that the law does not assist indolent litigants.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this common order the afore titled three writ petitions, challenging three orders dated 15.03.2023 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Udhampur whereby appeals against Mutation Nos.225, 258, 318, 335, 285 & 286 of Village Kallar Himti, Tehsil & District, Udhampur have been dismissed, are proposed to be disposed of.

2. The petitioner claims that his father was owner-in-possession of land measuring 05 kanals in Khasra No.334/69; 03 kanals 04 marlas in Khasra No.69/3; 12 kanals 09 marlas in Khasra No.69/4; 06 kanals 02 marlas in Khasra No.335/71; 2 kanals 12 marlas in Khasra No.336/72; 16 marlas in Khasra No.332/68; 08 kanals in Khasra No.68 min; 15 kanals 5 marlas in Khasra No.71 min; 06 kanals 2 marlas in Khasra No.69/2; and 1 kanal 13 marlas in Khasra No.67 situated at Village Kallar Himti, Tehsil & District Udhampur.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 in connivance with the revenue agencies fraudulently succeeded in getting Mutation Nos.225 & 258 under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in respect of one chunk of land and in respect of another chunk of land he succeeded in getting Mutation Nos.318 & 335 under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in his favour. It has been further alleged that private respondents succeeded in getting mutation Nos.285 & 286 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in their favour in respect of 3rd chunk of land. Mutation No.225 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar concerned on 17.12.1981, whereas Mutation No.258 under Section 8 was attested by the Tehsildar on 03.05.1984 in one chunk of land. Similarly, in respect of second chunk of land, Mutation No.318 under Section 4 was attested by the Tehsildar Udhampur on 22.07.1987 whereas Mutation No.335 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 08.05.1988. In respect of the 3rd chunk of land, Mutation No.285 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 17.10.1985 where after Mutation No.286 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 27.10.1985.

4. The record shows that these mutation orders in respect of three chunks of land, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner, were challenged by him by way of three separate appeals before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Udhampur in the year 2011. These appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner in terms of his order dated 04.01.2017. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision before J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 26.12.2019 allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the Commissioner directing him to hear the parties on the application for condonation of delay and pass fresh orders.

5. It is in the backdrop of aforesaid facts, all the three appeals landed again before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Udhampur, who vide impugned orders dated 15.03.2023, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation by holding that the appellant/ petitioner herein has not explained the inordinate delay of 23-30 years in filing the appeals. Three separate orders have been passed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing all the three appeals filed by the petitioner. Against these three orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 15.03.2023, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the afore titled three writ petitions.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur on the ground that the said Authority has not appreciated the controversy involved in the case in its correct perspective. According to the petitioner, the impugned Mutation orders have been passed by the Tehsildar concerned on the basis of