Oral Gift Of Agrarian Land Without Approval U/S 31 Of Agrarian Reforms Act Is Void, Mutation Liable To Be Recast: J&K High Court

In a ruling emphasising the the interplay between the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and the earlier alienation of land Act, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that any oral gift of agrarian land, including to close relatives, is impermissible without prior approval from competent authority under Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.

The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the writ court wherein it had set-aside the order of finance commissioner upholding the mutation attested on the basis of oral gift.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar while setting aside the order of the writ court and upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) which had invalidated a mutation made on the basis of an oral gift made by mother in favour of her petitioner.

The court said that the gift was not valid without the permission of competent authority and requiring prior government permission under section 31 was mandatory and not a procedural formality.

The court took note of sections 28, 28-A, 31, 32, and 35, and underlined the legislative intent to strictly regulate the alienation of agricultural land in order to preserve equitable redistribution and protect the tiller's rights.

The Court ruled that the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, being a later and special statute, overrides the Alienation of Land Act, 1995, particularly in light of section 42 which clearly states that the earlier law ceases to apply to land covered under the Agrarian Reforms Act in case of any inconsistency.

The bench further noted that "even if oral gift is not barred under the Transfer of Property Act or the Act of 1995, the overriding effect of the 1976 Act prohibits such transfer without compliance with Section 31 and Rule 60.

On the argument that the revision petition was time-barred, the Court clarified that limitation cannot cure a fundamentally illegal act such as an oral transfer of land in violation of the Agrarian Reforms Act.

The court observed that once the transfer is legally forbidden, no limitation can validate a mutation recorded on such basis. The court thus emphasized that the Financial Commissioner was well within his revisional jurisdiction to correct such illegality.

The Court directed the revenue authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry into the impugned mutation after hearing the parties and recast the mutation strictly in accordance with law, especially Rule 60 of the 1977 Rules framed under the Agrarian Reforms Act.

BACKGROUND:

In this case Mst. Mugli during her lifetime orally gifted 22 kanals and 13 marlas of land to her son in 1996. After her death in 2015, her estate was mutated in favour of all legal heirs in 2017.

The appellant, one of the daughters, challenged the oral gift as fictitious and illegal, citing a ban on land alienation at the time and violations of Standing Order 23-A.

The Financial Commissioner agreed and set aside the mutation in 2022, holding that despite oral gifts being valid under Muslim law, the ban on land alienation under Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 applied, and legal procedures were not followed.

However the respondent son challenged this before the High Court. The writ court ruled in his favour, stating that Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was not applicable to the case, and that the Financial Commissioner had acted mechanically without proper reasoning.

The High Court upheld the validity of oral gifts under Muslim law and quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was preferred before the court.

APPEARANCE

M. Amin Khan, Advocate For Petitioner

Javid Ahmad Parray, Advocate For Respondents

Case-Title: Saja Begum vs Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K Govt.& Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

Click Here To Read/Download Order