VAKIL SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COLLECTOR AGRARIAN REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition questioning director Land Records' order of August 16, 2003 whereby he had set aside mutation nos. 752 and 781 attested under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, pertaining to five kanals of land comprised in Khasra nos. 413/122 of village Parlah tehsil R. S. Pura and remanded the case to Tehsildar settlement, R. S. Pura for fresh inquiry, as also against jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal Jammu's order of august 29, 2005 rejecting the revision petition he had preferred against the above mentioned order of Director land Records. Mr. C. M. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a short submission to assail the orders impugned in this petition. According to him, the Director Land records had erred in condoning delay in respondent nos. 6 to 8's filing their appeal against the mutations without there being any justifiable cause therefor and the tribunal had failed to correct the error which the Learned director Land Records had committed in condoning the delay.

(2.) PER contra, Mr. G. S. Thakur submitted that the mutations impugned in the appeal, snacked, ex-facie of numerous illegalities committed by the Assistant commissioner in attesting mutations at a place in Village murallian far away from the village where the land is situated, and that too without the identification of the persons who had been recorded in the revenue records to be in possession of the land. He submits that rather than getting the identification of the persons recorded in occupation of the land much prior to Kharief 1971 till 1990, the Assistant Commissioner had, in violation of government Order No. Rev (LB)133 of 1989 of 26th May 1989 is stated to have got the petitioner identified from the persons recorded in possession of the land whose identity had not been certified either by the Lumberdar of the village where the land is situated or by any resident thereof. Learned counsel submitted that delay in filing the appeal had been condoned by the Appellate Court for good reasons and in the interest of justice. He submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case may not justify any interference with the discretion exercised by the Appellate and the Revisional revenue agencies in condoning delay in respondents filing the appeal against the mutations.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Condonation of delay by Appellate and Revisional forums, is a subject which has been deliberated upon on numerous occasions by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterating that expressions like "sufficient cause" or the like vesting discretion in the Appellate and Revisional forums to condone delay in filing appeals and revisions is adequately elastic to enable the Forums/courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Forums/courts. The approach to be adopted by such Forums, as suggested by the Supreme Court is to make a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in the Forums/courts. This liberal approach is required to be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice which the law and justice expects it to do.