HC refuses to revive 32-year delayed challenge to land mutation, upholds SDM’s order

13/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 12: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that vague allegations of fraud and collusion cannot be used to reopen a land dispute after more than three decades without a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay, dismissing a writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal against a 1993 mutation.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the petition filed by Rajvinder Kour and Rajinder Kour, upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Marh, who had refused to entertain their appeal against Mutation No. 80 dated September 12, 1993, holding that it was hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioners were represented by Advocate Jagmohan Singh. The Court observed that although procedural requirements should not be interpreted in an unduly technical manner, litigants seeking condonation of an inordinate delay must lay a clear factual foundation explaining why they failed to approach the competent authority within the prescribed period.
The dispute pertains to 12 kanals and 2 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 101 at Village Bagh, Tehsil Marh, District Jammu. The petitioners claimed that they, along with respondent Darshan Singh and another respondent, were legal heirs of late Raghubir Singh and were entitled to equal shares in the inherited property. According to them, the mutation was attested exclusively in favour of Darshan Singh without issuing notice to the other legal heirs and in alleged connivance with revenue officials.
The petitioners submitted that they became aware of the mutation only when respondent Darshan Singh allegedly attempted to alienate the land. They challenged the mutation before the SDM, Marh, seeking restoration of their inheritance rights and alleging that the mutation had been effected illegally and without following due process.
The respondents, however, objected to the maintainability of the appeal, pointing out that it had been filed nearly 32 years after the mutation without any application for condonation of delay or any explanation constituting "sufficient cause." They argued that the petitioners had failed to disclose the date on which they allegedly acquired knowledge of the mutation and had remained completely inactive for over three decades.
Accepting the objection, the SDM dismissed the appeal on April 7, 2026, observing that the statutory limitation period for filing such an appeal was 90 days, whereas the challenge had been made after an unexplained delay of more than 32 years. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the appellate authority had adopted a technical approach by rejecting the appeal merely because no separate application seeking condonation of delay had been filed. It was contended that courts are required to adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach while considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly where allegations of fraud and denial of natural justice are involved.
Justice Nargal, however, found that the petitioners' case suffered from a much more fundamental defect than the absence of a formal application.
The Court noted that even if the averments in the memorandum of appeal were treated as a request for condonation of delay, the petition itself failed to disclose any material particulars explaining why the petitioners remained unaware of the mutation for more than three decades.
"The deficiency is not merely procedural," the Court observed, adding that the appeal was "bereft of any material particulars explaining the extraordinary delay of more than thirty-two years."
The judgment records that the petitioners had merely made a general assertion that they came to know about the mutation when respondent No. 1 attempted to alienate the property. However, they failed to specify the date, month or even the year when such knowledge was acquired or explain the circumstances under which they allegedly remained unaware of the mutation for such a prolonged period.
Justice Nargal further observed that the allegations of fraud, collusion and suppression were unsupported by any factual particulars or documentary material.
The Court reiterated that while the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal interpretation, such liberal construction cannot be invoked in the complete absence of facts explaining the delay.
Relying extensively on the Supreme Court's decisions in Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) and the recent Constitution Bench decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Dead) by LRs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024), Justice Nargal held that courts cannot revive stale or dead claims merely by invoking principles of substantial justice.
The High Court observed that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and seeks to ensure finality in litigation. Once valuable rights have accrued to a party because the opposite party failed to pursue legal remedies within the prescribed period, such rights cannot be disturbed unless sufficient cause is established with convincing material.
The Court said negligence, prolonged inaction and absence of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning extraordinary delay.
Holding that the findings recorded by the SDM were based on the pleadings available before the authority and suffered from no perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error, the Court declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
"The vague assertion regarding acquisition of knowledge, without disclosing the date or surrounding circumstances thereof, cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such an enormous delay," Justice Nargal observed while affirming the order of the appellate authority.
Concluding that the petitioners had failed to establish any legal ground warranting interference, the High Court upheld the SDM's order dated April 7, 2026, and dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications, holding it to be devoid of merit.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty