Jammu: The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu and Kashmir, has directed Collectors to entertain suits seeking correction of entries in the Record of Rights under Section 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, clarifying that the one-year limitation provision linked to Section 49 cannot be invoked to refuse such cases after the latter provision was repealed.
Through Order No. 152-FC(Rev) of 2026, dated October 30, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has clarified the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 32 and the transfer of cases to the respective Deputy Commissioners.
The order addresses the difficulties faced by people seeking correction of land revenue records, whose applications and suits were reportedly being declined by Collectors on the ground that the statutory remedy was barred by a one-year limitation period.
Section 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act provides a statutory remedy to persons aggrieved by entries in the Record of Rights. It allows an affected person to institute a suit before the Collector for correction of the record and, where the claimant is not in possession, also seek possession of the claimed right.
The Financial Commissioner has referred to the fact that Section 32(1), as originally enacted, linked the one-year limitation period to the publication of the record of distribution of assessment under Section 49(1) of the Act. However, Section 49 was subsequently repealed and omitted from the statute book through Act X of 2005.
The order also refers to the decision of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated September 10, 2026, in Munshi Ram v. RDS&LR Doda, wherein it was held that following the omission of Section 49, the statutory event on which the one-year limitation period was dependent no longer existed in law, rendering the limitation stipulation inoperative.
Despite this legal position, Collectors were reportedly not entertaining such matters, prompting aggrieved persons to approach the Financial Commissioner’s court under Section 27 of the Act.
The Financial Commissioner observed that this practice was unnecessarily burdening the higher revenue forum and diverting cases from the statutory authority vested with original jurisdiction.
The order emphasises that Collectors are institutionally better placed to adjudicate land record disputes, as they can examine relevant revenue records, conduct local inquiries and spot verification, assess factual evidence and decide claims concerning land situated within their respective districts.
It further notes that forcing litigants to approach a distant higher revenue forum leads to unnecessary expenditure, delays and hardship, undermining accessible and effective administration of justice.
The order’s stated objective is to ensure that land record correction disputes are dealt with at the appropriate original revenue forum rather than being unnecessarily pushed to the Financial Commissioner’s court.
