SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue mutation attested in 1970, holding that an unexplained delay of more than five decades could not be condoned merely on the basis of the petitioner’s minority, residence outside the Valley and prevailing circumstances.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the petition on September 28, 2026, and upheld the August 29, 2025 order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, which had set aside orders allowing the delay in challenging mutation No. 488.
The case concerned mutation No. 488, attested on December 7, 1970, in respect of the estate of late Thakur Raghbeer Singh at Asham. The petitioner, Mrs Kareena Jamwal, alias Zulikha Hussain, claimed to be one of his legal heirs and alleged that the mutation had been attested in favour of some family members without notice to her, excluding her from the estate.
According to the court record, the petitioner challenged the mutation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sumbal, only on March 1, 2023. She claimed that she first learnt of the mutation on November 5, 2022, when she approached the revenue authorities seeking partition of the property according to the shares of the legal heirs.
The petitioner had argued that she was a minor when the mutation was attested, having been born on September 4, 1954, and that she subsequently lived outside Jammu and Kashmir for a considerable period. She attributed her inability to challenge the mutation earlier to the prevailing law-and-order situation in the Valley and lack of knowledge of the revenue entry.
The SDM, Sumbal, had initially condoned the delay after hearing the parties, while the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir, subsequently upheld that decision. The private respondents then approached the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), who allowed their revision petition on August 29, 2025, setting aside the orders of the subordinate authorities.
The High Court found that the central issue was whether the delay of more than five decades in challenging the mutation could be legally condoned.
The court noted that while the petitioner’s minority, residence outside the Valley and prevailing circumstances could be relevant considerations, they did not satisfactorily explain the entire period between 1970 and 2023.
“While these circumstances may constitute relevant considerations, the same cannot, by themselves, furnish an explanation for the entire period of more than five decades,” the court held.
The court specifically observed that the Financial Commissioner had found no satisfactory explanation for the period between 1970 and 1989, or for the subsequent period when, according to the record, the situation in the Valley had considerably improved.
Justice Nargal also held that even if the petitioner’s minority at the time of mutation were accepted, it could not by itself account for her inaction for several decades after attaining majority.
The court further took note of an alleged transaction involving 110 kanals of land in 2003 in favour of Mst Farida Begum. It observed that the passage of more than five decades, coupled with the possibility of third-party interests having been created during the intervening period, was a significant consideration against reopening the long-standing revenue entry.
The High Court said the law on condonation of delay requires a court to consider the length of delay, the explanation offered, the conduct of the party, rights accrued during the intervening period and possible prejudice to the opposite parties.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Sheo Raj Singh v Union of India and Basawaraj & Anr v Special Land Acquisition Officer, the court reiterated that limitation is not merely a technical requirement and that a party seeking condonation must provide a satisfactory explanation constituting “sufficient cause”.
The court also referred to its March 10, 2026 judgment in Mohd Bashir v Union Territory of J&K and Others, observing that limitation rules prescribe the lifespan of a legal remedy and that prolonged inaction requires a cogent explanation for the relevant periods.
The petitioner had also alleged that the Financial Commissioner’s order was non-speaking and had failed to consider her submissions, including the alleged violation of Standing Order No. 23-A. The High Court rejected this contention, finding that the revisional authority had considered the principal circumstances relied upon by her, including her alleged lack of knowledge, residence outside the Valley, prevailing conditions and the passage of time.
The respondents, meanwhile, had questioned the petitioner’s case on several grounds, including alleged discrepancies in her name. They pointed to the name “Karuna Jamwal” in the date-of-birth certificate relied upon by her, while the writ petition described her as “Kareena Jamwal alias Zulikha Hussain”. They also objected to the non-joinder of legal heirs of another deceased sister, Swarn Jamwal.
The respondents further maintained that the proceedings before the revenue authorities principally concerned limitation and condonation of delay, rather than determination of substantive succession rights.
The High Court concluded that the Financial Commissioner had neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor committed any manifest error of law in setting aside the orders of the SDM and Additional Commissioner.
“Having regard to the totality of the circumstances,” the court held that the revisional authority’s decision, particularly in view of the unexplained delay extending over more than five decades and intervening circumstances, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition, WP(C) 3166/2025, was accordingly dismissed and the Financial Commisioner’s August 29, 2025 order was upheld.
