MOHD SADIQ vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS

Headnote:(A) Suo moto revisional jurisdiction - Requirement of prior notice and opportunity of hearing - Where a quasi-judicial authority intends to exercise suo moto revisional power, it must first notify the affected party of its inclination and afford an opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action - Failure to do so amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Mutation - Revenue entries - Setting aside of mutations by appellate authority while exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction without notice - Prima facie case made out for interim relief. (Paras 1-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner had obtained attestation of two mutations in respect of estate Shiendara, Tehsil Haveli. An earlier writ petition led to an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, who by order dated 26.09.2025 accepted the appeal but simultaneously, without prior notice, exercised suo moto revisional jurisdiction to set aside the mutations and restore prior revenue entries. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a fresh writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court held that a prima facie case was made out as the petitioner was not given any prior notice or opportunity of hearing before the revisional jurisdiction was exercised. The court stayed the operation of the impugned order and directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the land subject matter of the mutations.

Issues: Whether the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) could suo moto set aside mutations without prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

Ratio Decidendi: The settled law requires that before exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction, the authority must notify the party and provide an opportunity of hearing. The order was passed catching the petitioner unaware, violating natural justice. Result : Operation of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 stayed; status quo directed; notice issued; list on 05.12.2025.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appellate authority accepted appeal but suo motu exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside mutations without notice. (Para 01 , 02 , 04 )

2. Petitioner contended that prior notice and hearing were required before suo motu revisional exercise. (Para 03 )

3. Court issued notice, stayed impugned order, and directed status quo. (Para 05 , 06 , 07 , 08 , 09 , 10 )

01. This Court came to dispose of writ petition WP(C) No. 1166/2025, which was also preferred by the present petitioner, in terms of an order dated 09.05.2025 which resulted in filing of an appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, getting adjudicated upon on file No. 1494/FC-AP in terms of final order dated 26.09.2025 which has again rendered the petitioner aggrieved in the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction has come to be exercised by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue of J&K that while on the one hand accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order but then

simultaneously, exercising revisional jurisdiction though, without mentioning so by setting aside mutations No. 880 and 881 of estate Shiendara Tehsil Haveli and consequently restoring revenue entries as obtaining prior to the attestation of the two mutations which otherwise were obtaining in favour of the petitioner.

02. The present case involves the application of LB-6/C and order No. S-432 of 1966 in the context of which the petitioner who is said to have earned the attestation of two mutations which got set aside and accordingly, the entries pre-existing the attestation of mutations came to be restored by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

03. Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate arguing for the petitioner submits that if the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K was inclined to exercise suo-moto revisional jurisdiction then the requirement of law as settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that the petitioner ought to have been notified before hand by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K that he was inclined to exercise suo-moto jurisdiction and then affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner about the proposed line of reasoning on

which the suo-moto revisional power was being intended to be exercised by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

04. There is no doubt to the fact that with the same stroke of pen while accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Poonch in setting aside the two mutations attested in favour of the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K suo-moto switched over to the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the said two mutations and ordered restoration of the revenue entries as obtaining prior to the date of attestation of two mutations catching the petitioner unaware of the mindset of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K in the context of exercising of revisional jurisdiction.

05. Prima-facie case made out.

06. Issue notice to the respondent No. 2 only, at the first instance, in the main petition and in the CM No. 6993/2025 as well. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Reply be filed.

07. List on 05.12.2025.

08. Send for the record of file No. 1494/FC-AP titled “Mohd. Sadiq Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” from the court of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

09. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, shall remain stayed and status-quo be maintained with respect to the land forming subject matter of the two mutations above referred.

10. This order is, however, subject to the objections from the other side.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1051

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Rahul Bharti, J
MOHD SADIQ – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) 3051 / 2025

A quasi-judicial authority intending to exercise suo moto revisional power must first notify the affected party and provide an opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1051

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRRahul Bharti, JMOHD SADIQ – AppellantVersusUT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS – RespondentWP(C) 3051 / 2025

A quasi-judicial authority intending to exercise suo moto revisional power must first notify the affected party and provide an opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Rahul Bharti, J
MOHD SADIQ – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) 3051 / 2025