Serial No. 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CJ Court

Case: LPA 97/2021

Abdul Majeed Dar and another

… Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. M. Y. Lone, Advocate

V/s

UT of J&K and others

… Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. D. C. Raina, AG, with Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA

Mr. A. Haqani, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

O R D E R

09-08-2021

1.

Heard Mr. M. Y. Lone, learned counsel for the petitioners/

appellants, and Mr. D. C. Raina, learned AG who is assisted

by Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA.

2.

Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order dated

15.7.2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.

982/2020 titled Abdul Majeed Dar and another versus Union

Territory of J&K and others.

3.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/

appellants is that the writ court has completely failed to

consider that the order impugned in the writ petition passed

by the SDM Chadoora, Budgam, was completely without

P a g e | 2

LPA 97/2021

jurisdiction, and secondly that the order was passed behind

the back of the petitioners/appellants. Apart from the above

contentions, it is also alleged that there was a proper exchange

of land and, therefore, the orders of mutation were not liable

to be set aside that too without holding a proper inquiry in

accordance with the rules.

4.

The respondents have submitted that there was no valid

exchange of land. The petitioners/appellants despite alleged

exchange retained their land and never parted with it and,

thus, have managed the mutation entries which have been

rightly set aside by the SDM who is fully authorized to pass

the said order. The petitioners/appellants directly approached

the High Court by means of the writ petition so as to

challenge the above order without exhausting the statutory

remedy of appeal provided under section 11 of the J&K Land

Revenue Act. The aforesaid order was passed after due

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/appellants and they

have even participated in the proceedings.

5.

Before dealing with the respective contentions of the parties,

it is appropriate to state in brief the facts leading to the filing

of the writ petition.

6.

The petitioners/appellants allege that in exchange of 19

marlas of their proprietary land falling under survey Nos. 745

and 334 in village Ranger, Chadoora, district Budgam, they

have obtained 9 marlas of kahcharie land. On the basis of the

P a g e | 3

LPA 97/2021

said exchange, mutation numbers 110 and 111 were carried

out by the Revenue department in the name of the

petitioners/appellants. However, the SDM by the impugned

order dated 25.6.2020 has ordered for setting aside the

aforesaid mutation entries, thus restoring back the land as the

kahcharie land, and the land under survey Nos. 745 and 334

of the petitioners/appellants in their own name.

7.

A reading of the order of the SDM dated 25.6.2020 indicates

that the mutation entries were set aside as it was found that

there was no valid exchange inasmuch as there was no

approval to it by the competent authority and that despite the

alleged exchange, the petitioners/appellants never parted with

their land and remained in its occupation.

8.

It is pertinent to mention that the dispute raised in the writ

petition from which this appeal arises, was with regard to the

mutation entries.

9.

It is settled law that mutation entries are only for fiscal

purposes and are not documents of title. The mutation neither

extinguishes nor confers rights in the immovable property and

that the ultimate title, if necessary, is to be adjudicated upon

by the Civil Court. The courts have repeatedly laid down that

as mutation entries are not documents of title, any entry, even

if incorrectly made, would not affect the rights and titles of

the pa