CIVIL DISPUTE:- Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Case Details
Case Title: Abdul Majid v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case Numbers: WP(C) No. 435/2021 & WP(C) No. 795/2022
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Reserved On: 04.04.2025 | Pronounced On: 07.05.2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sakal Bhushan & Mr. Rahul Sharma
Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli (Senior AAG), Mr. Vishal Bharti (Dy. AG)
Case Background
The petitioner, Abdul Majid, purchased 12 kanals 7 marlas of land in Khasra No. 59/41, Village Dawara, Jammu through registered sale deeds (2000–2004). Mutations were duly attested in his favour, and revenue records reflected him as owner. In 2012, after obtaining all necessary No Objection Certificates, he constructed “Grand Hill Restaurant” on part of the land. In 2020, the Tehsildar, Jammu, cancelled the petitioner’s mutations (97, 98, 105) on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, citing irregularities under Government Order LB-6/C of 1958 and S-432 of 1966. In 2022, the Forest Department demolished the restaurant, alleging encroachment on forest landdespite an earlier joint demarcation report (2017) which found no forest encroachment. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging both the cancellation of mutations and the illegal demolition.
Legal Framework Examined
1. J&K Land Revenue Act, 1939 – Sections 11, 15, 19-A (appellate, revisional, and delegation powers).
2. Government Order LB-6/C of 1958 – Conferred “tenant-at-will” status to State land occupants in cultivating possession in 1957-58.
3. Government Order S-432 of 1966 – Conferred ownership rights upon tenants-at-will.
4. Government Order 158 of 1989 – Banned further LB-6/C & S-432 mutations (declared illegal and arbitrary by Court).
5. Supreme Court Guidelines on Demolition (2024) – Prior notice, hearing, reasoned order, appeal period, and video recording mandatory.
6. Principles of Natural Justice – “Audi alteram partem” (no one shall be condemned unheard).
7. Article 300A, Constitution of India – Right to property protected; deprivation only by authority of law.
Legal Questions and Court’s Answers
a) Maintainability of Writ Petition
Question: Whether writ petition is maintainable despite lack of direct challenge to Collector’s order, as petitioner contests only Tehsildar’s derivative order?
Answer: Yes. The Tehsildar’s order was derivative of the Collector’s order. Since the Collector’s order was concealed and petitioner was never served, writ is maintainable. Natural justice violation permits direct writ jurisdiction.
b) Authority of DC and Tehsildar
Question: Do Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar have administrative authority to revoke a mutation?
Answer: No. Mutation is a quasi-judicial act, not an administrative one. Only proper statutory procedure under the Land Revenue Act can annul a mutation. Both DC and Tehsildar lacked such authority.
c) Competence of DC under Section 19-A
Question: Could the DC rely on Section 19-A to seek report from subordinate and then cancel mutation?
Answer: No. Section 19-A allows reference only if the officer himself has jurisdiction to decide. Since DC had no such jurisdiction, reliance on Section 19-A was misplaced.
d) Significance of LB-6/C (1958) and S-432 (1966)
Answer:
LB-6/C (1958): Recognised State land occupants as tenants-at-will to encourage agriculture, including Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin lands.
S-432 (1966): Conferred proprietary rights to tenants-at-will. These orders created vested, permanent rights in favour of occupants.
e) Can Government Reopen Ownership after 62 Years?
Answer: No. Once ownership was granted under S-432 (1966), Government cannot retroactively annul or reopen the process. Doing so after six decades would undermine vested rights and create legal uncertainty.
f) Can Government Annul Process After Sale Deeds?
Answer: No. Petitioner acquired land through valid registered sale deeds (2000–2004), which were never challenged. State cannot indirectly cancel vested ownership by nullifying mutations.
g) Effect of Cancelling Mutation Without Challenging Sale Deeds
Answer: Sale deeds remain valid unless annulled by a competent court. Cancelling mutation without touching sale deeds is legally meaningless and creates inconsistency. Hence, the petitioner’s ownership stands.
h) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
Answer: Yes. No notice or hearing was given before cancelling mutations or before demolition. Entire proceedings are void for violating “audi alteram partem.”
i) Demolition Despite NOCs
Question: After NOCs were granted for construction, could Forest Department demolish the restaurant?
Answer: No. Having granted permissions, respondents could not take a contradictory stand later. Demolition without following Supreme Court’s 2024 guidelines was arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.
Court’s Relief and Directions
Mutations restored – cancellation orders quashed.
Demolition declared illegal.
Compensation Awarded:
₹76,40,200/- for reconstruction.
₹10,00,000/- punitive compensation.
Chief Secretary directed to conduct inquiry and fix liability on officers within 2 months.
Government restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession except by due process of law.
Significance of the Judgment
Reaffirms that ownership rights under LB-6/C & S-432 are permanent and cannot be reopened.
Clarifies that DC and Tehsildar lack jurisdiction to cancel mutations administratively. Strengthens natural justice and right to property under Article 300A.
Sets precedent that demolition without SC guidelines is illegal. Ensures State accountability with compensation and punitive damages.
KEYWORDS:-
Jammu kashmir and ladakh High Court, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Landmark judgments, jammu high court Land mark judgment on mutation registration civil dispute on property judgments latest judgments by j&k high court
For lawyers and advocates: This judgment is a crucial precedent for mutation disputes, land rights under LB-6/C & S-432, illegal demolitions, and compensation claims against arbitrary State action.
Read our other articles on different courts judgments visit our home page
This article cover the report on jammu kashmir high court judgement on civil property dispute violation of constitutional right of high mutation registration by Tehsildar annulment of mutation by Tehsildar not legal, further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal
