news details |
|
|
| HC sets aside condonation of 31-year delay in land mutation appeal | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an order condoning a delay of approximately 31 years in challenging land mutations, ruling that the burden of establishing sufficient cause for delay rests upon the person seeking condonation and cannot be shifted to the opposite party. Justice Shahzad Azeem, while deciding a petition filed by Mohd. Akbar and another, quashed the September 30, 2024 order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
The dispute concerned nine kanals of land situated at village Atoli, where mutation Nos. 128 and 129 had been attested in 1982 and 1984 under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Ownership rights had been conferred upon Din Mohd., father of the petitioners.
The mutations were challenged through an appeal filed in 2013, approximately three decades after their attestation.
The appellate authority subsequently condoned the delay, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Senior Advocate R. P. Sharma, assisted by Advocate Rohit Gupta, appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Sageera Jafar appeared on behalf of the UT administration in place of Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, while Advocate Ashish Sharma also appeared for the respondents.
The petitioners argued that the appellate authority had wrongly shifted the burden of proof by requiring them to establish that the appellant had knowledge of the mutations before July 27, 2013.
Examining the legal position, Justice Azeem observed that Section 22 of the Agrarian Reforms Act prescribes a limitation period of 60 days for filing an appeal.
Although Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay upon sufficient cause being shown, the Court held that the primary responsibility to satisfactorily explain the delay rests with the applicant.
The Court observed that merely claiming lack of knowledge cannot shift the initial burden of proof to the opposite party.
Holding that the appellate authority had adopted an erroneous legal approach, the High Court set aside the order condoning the delay.
The Court directed the authority to reconsider the application afresh after hearing the parties and applying the settled principles governing limitation.
The exercise should preferably be completed within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.
Importantly, the High Court did not decide the underlying ownership dispute or finally reject the application for condonation of delay. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
