An agrarian appellate authority condoned roughly thirty-one years’ delay in challenging mutations by faulting the opposite parties for not proving the appellant’s earlier knowledge.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem, Judge
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that this reversed the initial burden under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant seeking condonation must first establish sufficient cause through a bona fide explanation; weaknesses in the opponent’s case cannot replace that obligation. Although evidential onus may subsequently shift, the primary responsibility remains with the delayed appellant. The condonation order was set aside and the application remitted for fresh hearing, preferably within four weeks. The Court did not finally reject condonation or determine the competing land rights.
Case — Mohd. Akbar and anr. v. UT of J&K and ors. · WP(C)/2509/2024 · 27 October 2026 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. R.P Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate. Respondents — Ms. Sageera Jafar, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG; Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate.