Srinagar, Oct 1: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a revenue mutation attested in 1970, holding that the petitioner’s minority at the time could not, by itself, justify more than five decades of inaction after she attained majority.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the petitioner’s minority, residence outside the Valley and prevailing circumstances might explain certain periods of delay, but did not account for the entire period between the 1970 mutation and her challenge in 2023.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Kareena Jamwal alias Zulikha Hussain, who sought quashing of an order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, which had set aside orders condoning the delay in challenging the mutation.
Jamwal claimed to be among the legal heirs of late Thakur Raghbeer Singh and alleged that the mutation, attested on December 7, 1970, recorded the estate in favour of some private respondents while excluding her. She maintained that she was a minor at the time and had neither received notice nor knowledge of the revenue entry.
She claimed to have learned about the mutation only in November 2022 while seeking partition of the property. She thereafter obtained a certified copy and approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with a challenge and an application seeking condonation of delay.
The SDM condoned the delay, a decision later upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir. The Financial Commissioner subsequently reversed both orders and upheld the mutation, leading to the High Court petition.
The High Court held that although the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation, such discretion cannot be extended routinely to an inordinate and unexplained delay.
“Even assuming the petitioner's minority to be established, the same could not, by itself, explain the complete inaction for several decades after she attained majority,” Justice Nargal observed.
The court noted that the plea of lack of knowledge required a cogent explanation covering the entire period of delay. It also agreed with the Financial Commissioner that the law-and-order situation in the Valley could not explain the period from 1970 to 1989 or the subsequent years.
The court further considered a 2003 transaction involving 110 kanals of land, observing that reopening a revenue entry after such a prolonged period could affect rights and interests that had accrued in the intervening years.
Holding that the circumstances cited by the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Financial Commissioner’s order sustaining the 1970 mutation.