Suram Singh and Another v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

ORDER (24.09.2025)

¶1The petitioners, through the medium of the present writ

petition, have challenged order dated 18.05.2025, passed

by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Commissioner

Agrarian Reforms, J&K) Jammu, whereby reference made

by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in respect of

mutation No.318 dated 08.12.1956 has been rejected and

the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Reasi

has been upheld.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case. Serial No. 21

¶3It appears that the mutation No.318 dated 08.12.1956,

pertaining to village Beolian, Tehsil Reasi, (now Pouni),

came to be attested by the Naib Tehsildar Pouni, by

virtue of which estate of late Shiv Ram was transferred in

favour of the petitioners, who happen to be the sons of

Late Shiv Ram. Respondent No.5-Mst Rano Devi, who

happens to be the daughter of Late Shiv Ram, was

excluded from the mutation.

¶4Respondent No.5 challenged the aforesaid mutation order

before Court of Assistant Collector (Assistant

Commissioner, Reasi) by way of an appeal on 23.05.2015.

The Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Reasi, vide his

order dated 17.07.2018, set aside the said mutation order

and remanded the case to the Tehsildar concerned with a

direction to conduct de novo enquiry into the case in the

presence of both the parties. It was observed by the

Assistant Commissioner that respondent No.5 Rano Devi

has been inadvertently excluded from the heirs of Late

Shiv Ram.

¶5The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the

petitioners by way of a revision petition before the

Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. Vide order dated

11.09.2021, the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu

accepted the revision petition and made a reference to

Financial Commissioner, Jammu, with a

recommendation that order of Assistant

Commissioner, Reasi be set aside. The Divisional

Commissioner, Jammu while making the recommendation

observed that since the impugned mutation was attested

on 08.12.1956 and the Jammu & Kashmir Hindu

Succession Act had come into force thereafter on

28.12.1956, as such, respondent No.5 was not entitled to

inherit the estate belonging to her father.

¶6The learned Financial Commissioner while passing the

impugned order rejected the reference of the Divisional

Commissioner on the ground that the date of enforcement

of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has to be reckoned as

06.11.1956, the date on which assent to the said

legislation was accorded by the Sadr-i-Riyasat. On this

ground, it has been observed that mutation was attested

in the present case after coming into force of the J&K

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as such, in terms of the

provisions contained in the said Act, respondent No.5,

being the daughter of the estate holder, is entitled to

inherit share in the property of her father.

¶7The issue as to when J&K Hindu Succession Act came

into force in the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir may

not be of much relevance in the present case. Even if it is

assumed that Jammu & Kashmir Hindu Succession Act

has came into force with effect from 06.11.1956, the date

when it received the assent of Sadr-i-Riyasat, still then the

issue as to whether daughter of the estate holder was

entitled to inherit the estate has to be determined with

reference to the law applicable at the time of death of the

estate holder, when the succession to his property opened

or began to take effect, and not when the mutation order

was passed.

¶8In the present case, as per the mutation order No.318

dated

08.12.1956 attested by Naib Tehsildar

concerned, the death of the estate holder-Late Shiv Ram,

as per the statements of the parties recorded on spot, had

taken place one year prior to the said order i.e.,

somewhere in the year 1955. Admittedly in the year 1955,

Jammu & Kashmir Hindu Succession Act had neither

been promulgated nor had it been enforced in

erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir. Prior to the

enforcement of the said Act, a daughter had no right of

inheritance in the estate of her father. Therefore, the law

governing the succession at the time when Shri Shiv

Ram passed away has to be applied, while attesting the

mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate left behind

by him. Date of attestation of mutation is irrelevant for the

purpose of attestation of mutation of inheritance. The

Financial Commissioner has landed himself into a

grave error by ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶9Even otherwise the provisions contained in Section 5 of

the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not have been made

applicable in determining the date of enforcement of J&K

Hindu Succession Act, as the provisions contained in Act

of 1897 apply only to Central legislations and not to the

legislations made by the States. Even though Section 5 of

J&K General Clauses Act, 1920 has been incorporated in

the year 1957, yet it has retroactive application and it

applies to all legislations past and future made by J&K

legislature. As per this provision, a statute which does not

specifically provide for date of its enforcement, would

become applicable with effect from the date it is published

in Govt. Gazette. J&K Hindu Succession Act has been

published in Govt. Gazette on 28th December, 1956. Thus

the said Act has to be applied with effect from 28th

December 1956. The mutation in favour of the petitioners

has been attested on 08.12.1956. Therefore, J&K Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 cannot be made applicable to the

present case for this reason as well.

¶10For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated

18.05.2025 passed by respondent-Financial

Commissioner, Jammu (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms,

J&K), is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to

be set aside and the mutation order No.318 dated

08.12.1956 deserves to be upheld.

¶11The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned

order dated

18.05.2022, passed by Financial

Commissioner (Revenue), J&K is set aside and mutation

order No.318 dated 08.12.1956 is upheld. Any order

passed by any subordinate revenue authority in

pursuance to the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 shall

also stand quashed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU

24.09.2025

Sneha

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.2529/2022 Suram Singh & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rameshwar P Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nigam P. Saroop, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Rajdeep Singh Thakur, Advocate Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE