Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable for private disputes, particularly concerning inheritance and property rights, as it lacks a public law element.

JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who claim to be legal heirs of late Mst. Mukhti and Qadir Ganie, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of Mutation No. 267 dated 30.01.1995 pertaining to land measuring 4 Kanals and 5 Marlas situated at village Mahrajpora Kongamdara, Tehsil Pattan, District Baramulla, along with the orders dated 17.04.2025 and 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, whereby the revision and review petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

2. The petitioners had approached the Court of Financial Commissioner by way of a revision petition challenging the inheritance mutation attested in the year 1995 on the ground that the same was effected in violation of the law of succession and without associating all legal heirs. The revision petition was heard on merits and thereafter dismissed on 17.04.2025 on the ground of limitation. The review petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 15.05.2025.

3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have approached this Court, alleging that the dismissal of the revision on the ground of limitation, without affording an opportunity to address the issue, has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

4. Learned counsel Mr. S. H. Thakur for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) suffer from manifest illegality and procedural irregularity. It is contended that the revision petition was heard at length on merits and the issue of limitation was neither raised by the respondents nor by the Court during the course of arguments. After hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for orders. The subsequent dismissal of the revision solely on the ground of limitation, therefore, amounts to deciding the case on a point not in issue, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

5. The petitioners further submit that had the issue of limitation been raised during the hearing, they would have adequately addressed the same by placing the relevant facts and legal position before the Court. It is a settled principle of law that a Court cannot make out a new case for the parties. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 160, wherein it has been held that Courts should not decide matters on grounds not pleaded or argued by the parties.

6. It is also contended that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and the facts of each case have a direct bearing on its application. In the present case, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to explain the delay, if any, or the circumstances under which the impugned mutation came to be challenged. Deciding the matter on limitation without notice, therefore, amounts to denial of fair opportunity and violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. The learned counsel further submits that mutations relating to inheritance, particularly those attested in violation of Muslim Personal Law and Standing Order 23-A, stand on a distinct footing. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in Mohammad Maqbool v. State of J&K and Others, OWP No. 584/2018, decided in January 2025, wherein it has been categorically held that mutations attested in breach of the law of succession can be questioned at any point of time, and that the plea of limitation does not strictly apply in such cases. It is submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner failed to maintain uniformity with the law laid down by this Court.

8. It is further argued that under Section 13(4) of the J&K Land Revenue Act, the revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner are not circumscribed by limitation, unlike appellate powers under Section 12 of the Act. When the statute itself does not prescribe