Executive Government Order Cannot Supersede Statutory Notification Under Land Revenue Act To Alter Territorial Limits Of Revenue Administrative Units: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary, held that an executive government order cannot override a statutory notification issued under the Land Revenue Act to alter the territorial limits of revenue administrative units, and that any such change must be effected through a fresh statutory notification under Section 5 of the Act. The court set aside a government order transferring a revenue village from one tehsil to another, directing that the village continue within its earlier statutory jurisdiction until the government conducts a fresh examination, including affording the affected inhabitants an opportunity to be heard.
The petition was filed by residents of Revenue Village Dhanmasta in District Ramban seeking quashing of Government Order dated 30.08.2018 which directed inclusion of the village within Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo. The petitioners contended that the village had earlier been included in Tehsil Pogal Paristan with headquarters at Ukhral through Government Order dated 18.07.2014, which was subsequently formalised by Notification SRO 443 dated 21.10.2014 issued under Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996.
According to the petitioners, Village Dhanmasta comprised several hamlets and was geographically and administratively aligned with Tehsil Pogal Paristan. They submitted that the impugned order transferred the village to Niabat Neel of Tehsil Ramsoo without statutory authority and caused hardship to the inhabitants. Distance certificates issued by the Public Works Department were relied upon to show that Ukhral was geographically closer than Ramsoo and that several hamlets lacked road connectivity, requiring residents to travel on foot before accessing motorable roads.
The respondents filed objections stating that the reorganization of administrative units had been undertaken following recommendations of an Expert Committee and cabinet decisions. It was stated that Tehsil Ramsoo had been created as part of administrative restructuring and that the territorial jurisdiction of the new tehsil had been defined through the impugned order after considering administrative requirements. The respondents argued that the decision constituted a policy matter relating to administrative convenience and therefore did not warrant judicial interference.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing alteration of administrative units and observed that the Government possessed powers under the Land Revenue Act to alter territorial limits through statutory notifications. The Court stated that “the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir is empowered under Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 to issue or alter the limits of administrative units of tehsils, districts and provinces.”
The Court recorded that the territorial limits of the existing tehsils had already been defined through a statutory notification and noted that “the territorial limits of the existing tehsils having already been divided and defined, could be altered by issuing a notification by the competent authority only which is permissible to be issued in the form of an SRO.”
Referring to the earlier notification issued under Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court stated that “the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir vide SRO 443 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 had already set up a Tehsil unit at Pogul Paristan (Ukral) and the petitioners’ village was included in the limits of that Tehsil.”
Upon examining the impugned order, the Court observed that the administrative order excluded the village from the previously notified jurisdiction. The Court recorded that “thereafter, vide the impugned administrative/government order passed by the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, ordered exclusion of the petitioners’ village from Tehsil Ukhral.”
Addressing the legal effect of the administrative order, the Court stated that “the Govt. order cannot super cede a statutory notification issued in the form of SRO.”
The Court also examined the factual circumstances relating to accessibility and administrative convenience. It recorded that “topography of the area, geographical contiguity and accessibility are the prime concerns to determine the convenience of the local population to access the public facilities/utilities to be supplied to them by the Govt. through Tehsil office.”
Further analysing the government’s action, the Court observed that “it appears that while issuing the impugned Govt. order, the Government has not considered these factors and issued the same just to justify the setting up of a new Tehsil unit at Ramsoo.”
The Court concluded its reasoning by recording that “the impugned order has been passed by the Govt. without application of mind and also is in the teeth of a statutory order issued by the govt. on the subject earlier.” It further stated that “if at all the Govt. was interested to make any change, it was incumbent upon the Govt. to examine the matter on various factors and then pass a statutory order in terms of Section 5 of the Land Revenue Act Svt.1996.”
The Court directed that “the impugned govt. Order No.155-Rev(S) of 2018 dated 30.08.2018 is hereby quashed, to the extent and insofar as it directs inclusion of Revenue Village Dhanmasta, forming part of Tehsil Pogal Paristan with headquarters at Ukhral, into Niabat Neel, Tehsil Ramsoo. The government to examine the matter afresh and in case it is needed, statutory provision be made, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the inhabitants of village Dhanmasta. Until then the village Dhanmasta shall continue to be within the limits of Niabat Ukhral (Khas) and Tehsil Pogul Paristan at Ukhral.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. RKS Thakur, Advocate; Ms. Anandita Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate (vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG)
Case Title: Omesh Singh & Others v. State (now UT) of Jammu & Kashmir & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:657
Case Number: OWP No. 276/2019
Bench: Justice M. A. Chowdhary
