Mutation Cannot Be Used To Alter Co-Sharer's Ownership, Only Clerical Corrections Permitted Under Standing Order 23-A: J&K High Court
Reiterating the narrow scope of Paragraph 100 of Standing Order No. 23-A, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a mutation entry cannot be used to delete the name of a co-sharer or to confer exclusive ownership.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed by the heirs of one Bishan Dass, while upholding the concurrent findings of revenue authorities that recognized joint ownership of agricultural land under the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950.
For Context paragraph 100 of Standing Order No. 23-A governs “Sehat Indraj” or correction mutations. It permits only formal or clerical corrections such as misspellings of names, caste, residence, or parentage without affecting the substantive rights of parties. It cannot be used to alter the title, delete a co-sharer's name, or confer exclusive possession.
Background of the Case:
The appeal stemmed from a long-standing dispute over 27 kanals and 3 marlas of land in village Sehar Timber, District Kathua. This land was vested in two tillers Dittu and Dalipu—under the 1950 Abolition Act and Mutation No. 71 was attested accordingly in 1951. In 1986, however, a Sehat Indraj Mutation No. 225 was attested in favour of Bishan Dass (son of Dittu), deleting Dalipu's name from the revenue record.
This deletion was challenged by Dalipu and led to multiple rounds of litigation. Eventually, in 2004, Mutation No. 295 was attested restoring the names of both parties as co-sharers. All subsequent challenges by the heirs of Bishan Dass failed before revenue authorities and the writ court, leading to the present appeal.
Appearing for the appellants, Mr. G.S. Thakur argued that the 2004 mutation was passed ex parte without proper notice and that Dalipu was not in cultivating possession at the crucial time under the Act of 1950. He further alleged that the respondents had sold a part of the land but concealed this from the Court.
On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Anand, counsel for the private respondents (Maru Ram and Madi Devi), submitted that all mutations were backed by historical Jamabandis and that the appellants' challenge was not only belated but also barred due to their failure to contest earlier decisive orders.
Court's Observations:
Authoring the judgment, Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the attestation of Mutation No. 225 in favour of Bishan Dass was in “utter disregard of Para 100 of Standing Order No. 23-A”. The Court explained,
“Standing Order No. 23-A only provides and envisages correction of clerical errors in name, caste, tribe, residence or other particulars, which do not practically affect any right in any way.”
The Bench found that the removal of Dalipu's name from the ownership record and exclusive entry in favour of Bishan Dass was a substantive alteration of title, which was not permitted under the Sehat Indraj provisions.
Further, the Court noted that Mutation No. 295 (2004) had been attested in compliance with a 2002 order that upheld both parties as co-sharers based on the Jamabandi of 1967-68. Bishan Dass was duly summoned for the 2004 proceedings but deliberately chose not to appear. Therefore, the argument of lack of notice or ex parte action was without merit.
The Court also rejected the plea that Dalipu was not a tiller, noting that the 1971 Kharif/Rabi revenue records explicitly recorded his cultivating possession and this fact had been upheld by multiple authorities. The court remarked,
“From the records placed on file it is seen that the land in question has been vested in ownership to the predecessors of the parties herein under the provisions of Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and the extract of Rabi/Kharief 1971 reflects Dalipu in the cultivating possession of the said land.”
Observing that a writ court cannot act as an appellate or revisional forum over factual findings unless there is violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental rights, the court underscored,
“The writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert itself to an appellate or revisional forum.”
Since none of these grounds were established, the Court declined to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Vs Financial
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)