Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28.The petitioner asserts that the contested order, which annulled mutation Nos. 97, 98, and 105, was issued by respondent No. 4 without providing any notice to the petitioner. This assertion is explicitly stated in paragraphs 3, 7, 8, and 11 of the petition and has not been contested by the respondents. Consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned order fails to meet legal standards and should be annulled.

29.The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the impugned order was issued by respondent No. 4, the Tehsildar of Jammu, based on directives from the Deputy Commissioner of Jammu. It is asserted that respondent No. 4 lacks the jurisdiction under the Act to issue a quasi- judicial order for the cancellation of mutations, as this action was taken solely on administrative instructions from the Collector, without involving the petitioner or granting an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the Deputy Commissioner lacks the administrative authority to annul a mutation, a matter previously addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case titled "Om Parkash and others Vs. UT of J&K and Others" in WP(C) No. 2360/2021, decided on 02.03.2024. He further contended that this is not a situation where an order issued by the Assistant Collector has led the aggrieved party to appeal to the appellate authority, which has exercised its powers under Section 11 of the Act. Rather, the Deputy Commissioner of Jammu has improperly invoked suo-moto powers under Section 11 of the Act, responding to the reference made by the Tehsildar of Jammu and nullifying the mutations, a procedure that contravenes the intent and provisions of the Act. Consequently, from whatever perspective, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the impugned order fails to meet legal standards and should be annulled.

48.Regarding respondents contention that the petitioner has not pursued the alternative and effective remedy stipulated by the statute regarding the cancellation of the mutation, Mr. Bhushan cites the judgement of the Apex Court in "Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors," reported in (1988) (8) SCC 1, which delineates exceptions permitting the direct filing of a writ petition without exhausting the alternative remedy, provided the petitioner's case pertains to the enforcement of fundamental rights, a breach of natural justice, an order without jurisdiction or proceeding, or a challenge to the vires of an Act. Based on the aforementioned exceptions, the learned counsel asserts that the core of the petitioner's argument in this case is the infringement of the principle of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned without a hearing and has not been afforded the opportunity to contest the cancellation of the mutations, a fact that has already been acknowledged by the respondents. According to him, this is a suitable example in which the writ petition might have been filed directly, bypassing the alternative and effective remedy available under the statute against such an order. Furthermore, he contends that the entire proceedings initiated by the relevant Tehsildar or the Collector are void in the eyes of the law, as the petitioner has been condemned without a hearing, which constitutes a valid basis for directly approaching this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the doctrine of alternate and effective remedy will not apply in the context of the petitioner's case.

Consequently, question No. (a) is answered accordingly. Findings on Question of Law marked supra as "b"

(b) Whether Deputy Commissioner as well as Tehsildar lack the administrative authority to revoke a mutations?

60.The primary concern is whether the Tehsildar possesses the competence to annul mutations or if such a determination necessitates a formal quasi- judicial procedure. If the legislation permits the Tehsildar to make determinations solely based on legal procedures or particular provisions within the act, then the cancellation of mutations solely by administrative directives by the Deputy Commissioner contravenes procedural fairness. Furthermore, the Tehsildar has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by the J&K Land Revenue Act of 1939, as he possesses no power to annul or amend mutations solely based on administrative directives from a superior officer, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Jammu. The authority to annul a mutation or assess it necessitates a formal procedure, entailing legal examination and a quasi-judicial decision-making process, which seems to be absent in the current instance. Consequently, it is evident that the Tehsildar has acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him and has circumvented the legal due procedure. The impugned order dated 15.09.2020 was issued in contravention of the specific stipulations of the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1939. The order, which nullifies the mutations, explicitly states that it was issued by respondent no. 4, exclusively based on directives from respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of Jammu, as communicated in his order dated 14th September 2020. The Tehsildar lacked the authority under any provision of the J&K Land Revenue Act to issue an order rescinding the mutations, particularly when, acting solely on the administrative order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, which was neither provided to the petitioner nor included in the respondent's reply to the current petition. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner lacks the administrative authority to revoke a mutation, a matter that has been corroborated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case named "Om Prakash & ors." In the case of "v. UT of J&K & Ors" in WP(C) NO. 2360/2021, adjudicated on 20.03.2024, the following decision was rendered:

116. The petitioner asserts that the basis of the petition is grounded in the infringement of natural justice principles. The petitioner asserts that the annulment of the mutation occurred without affording him the chance to present his case, a principle essential to natural justice. The respondents admit the denial of opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the cancellation of the mutations, so constituting a clear violation of procedural fairness.

117. Moreover, the petitioner contends that this circumstance, in which a decision is rendered without providing a fair hearing, unequivocally aligns with the exceptions established in ―Whirlpool Corporation‖ (supra). The petitioner contends that the infringement of his right to a fair hearing is so egregious that it warrants a direct writ to the Court, circumventing the usual statutory remedy mandated by law. The petitioner asserts that no effective remedy would have been accessible via the statutory process due to the intrinsic nature of the violation of natural justice.