A Single Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that in the exercise of powers under Article 226, the High Court does not act as a court of appeal, and as such, its power is extremely limited. The Court only has to examine the impugned order to see if due process has been followed, principles of natural justice adhered to, and if there is no perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the writ court cannot interfere with the impugned order merely because a better view is possible, as long as the impugned order is probable.

These observations were made by the Court in a petition challenging the order passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue (FCR) in a revision petition, which rejected the recommendations made by the Additional Commissioner for fresh mutations after a de-novo enquiry. The petitioners had pleaded before the Additional Commissioner to set aside the Mutation executed in favour of respondents in 2003, to the exclusion of petitioners, who were the legal heirs of the last estate holder, based on a disputed relinquishment deed. They argued that as per Muslim Law of Inheritance applicable to the parties, the said mutation is bad in law. The Additional Commissioner had recommended fresh mutations after conducting a de novo enquiry while condoning the delay of almost 19 years that had occurred in filing the revision petition.  However, the FCR, while rejecting the recommendations made by the Additional Commissioner, had held that the petitioners had miserably failed to cross the hurdle of limitation.

The Court, analyzing the scope of limitation while exercising the Suo moto powers of revision under the Jammu & Kashmir Revenue Act, held that Section 15 of the Act, when read in conjunction with Section 12, gives the right of Suo moto revision only to the Financial Commissioner, who may exercise such power at any point in time. However, the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir, who is also the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, exercises his powers under Section 15(2) for exercising suo moto powers of revision which does not state that the power of revision can be exercised “at any time.” This means that when the suo moto powers of revision are being exercised by the Additional Commissioner, the same would have to be exercised within the period of limitation mentioned in Section 12 of the Act, i.e., within 90 days. The Court found the order of FCR to be reasoned, and as such, owing to the limited scope of interference under Article 226, did not set aside the impugned order.