Is SDM a Collector or Assistant Collector?
Deconstructing the Revenue Jurisdiction Anomaly in J&K Land Revenue Law
In the revenue administration, few concepts are as vital as territorial and statutory jurisdiction. When an administrative officer adjudicates land disputes, condones decades-long delay in adjudicating mutation appeals or orders boundary corrections, their power must flow directly from a clear substantive source. In the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir however, the statutory status of Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) under the J&K Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 AD) has long hovered in a legal grey area.
The issuance of notification S.O. 212 on July 30th 2026 by the Revenue Department - which once again confers the powers of a “COLLECTOR” upon all SDMs - highlights a persistent administrative dilemma. Rather than resolving the jurisdictional ambiguity created by the 2018 legislative amendment through a formal clarifying order or validating act, the executive has opted for an unwanted fresh executive notification. This choice leaves a lingering question as to whether the SDMs are Assistant Collectors First Class, full-fledged Collectors, or both - and what happens to the decisions made in the interim?
The Genesis of the Anomaly;
To understand the core issue, one must analyze the architecture of Section 6 of the J&K Land Revenue Act. Section 6 (1) sets out five distinct classes of Revenue Officers;
1. Financial Commissioner
2. Divisional Commissioner
3. Collector
4. Assistant Collector of the First Class
5. Assistant Collector of the Second Class
Historically, under the unamended Section 6 (2), Deputy Commissioners were ex-officio Collectors, while Assistant Commissioners and Tehsildars were ex-officio Assistant Collectors First Class. Notably, Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) were not mentioned anywhere in section 6 (2).
Because SDMs lacked an ex-officio statutory status under section 6(2), the State Government routinely used its delegation powers under sub-section (4) and (5) of section 6. Section 6(4) permits the government to confer upon “any person” all or any powers of Financial Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner or Collector.
On February 19th , 2015, the Government issued Notification SRO-55, explicitly invoking Section 6(4) and (5) to confer the full powers of a Collector upon all SDMs within their respective territorial jurisdictions, superseding the earlier SRO-258 of 2012. This delegation decentralized revenue administration, allowing SDMs to hear first appeals against Tehsildars and handle major revenue matters at the sub-divisional level.
The 2018 Legislative Intervention: The Statutory Paradox;
The legal position became complex on February 24th, 2018, when the State Legislature enacted J&K Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2018, which substituted Section 6 (2) with a new mandate:
“The Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner of a District shall be the Collector thereof; and a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an Assistant Commissioner and a Tehsildar shall be an Assistant Collector of the First Class…”
This legislative amendment created a statutory paradox;
1. The legislature explicitly defined the baseline cadre status of an SDM as an Assistant Collector of the First Class under section 6 (2)
2. However, the executive notification SRO-55 of 2015- issued 3 years prior under section 6(4)- had already conferred upon SDMs the higher powers of a Collector.
This conflict raised a critical question: Did the subsequent legislative amendment of Section 6(2) in 2018 implicitly override and extinguish SRO-55 of 2015 issued under Sub-Sections (4) and (5) thereof, effectively demoting SDMs back to Assistant Collectors 1st Class? Or did SRO-55 survive because of the fact its being ordered under sub-sections (4) and (5), granting SDMS a “dual capacity” where they held baseline status as Assistant Collector 1st Class while exercising delegated functional powers as Collector?
The Judicial Flashpoint:
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has encountered this jurisdictional ambiguity across various matters:
1. Very recently in the case of Manzoor Ahmed Bhat & Ors. versus UT of J&K (WP(C) No.350/ 2026) in an order dated February 25th 2026, a bench headed by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi directly questioned the ongoing validity of the 2015 notification. In which an SDM’s order was challenged on jurisdictional grounds, Justice Kazmi ordered;
“Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to seek and report instructions on the next date of hearing, as to whether SRO 55 dated 19.02.2015, whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrates of the then State had been given powers of Collector in terms of Sub-Section 4 and 5 of Section 6 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996, is settled in existence or not.”
This judicial directive brought the issue to the forefront, exposing the government's failure to formally clarify the interaction between the 2018 statutory amendment and SRO-55.
2. High Court Jurisprudence upholding SDM Collector Actions
Despite these statutory questions, the High Court has routinely accepted SDMs exercising Collector powers when examining cases on their merits:
a. In Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Waza Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (2023), the Court the affirmed orders passed by the “Collector (SDM Pattan)” hearing a statutory appeal under Section 10(a) against a Naib Tehsildar’s inheritance mutation.
b. In Baljeet Kour Vs. UT of J&K, 2024, the Court adjudicated a challenge to a detailed De-Novo inquiry order passed by the “Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammu North with the powers of Collector,” evaluating the matter on its merits without questioning the SDMs statutory standing.
c. In Abdul Majeed Dar & Anr. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (2021) the Division Bench of the Court upheld the order of SDM Chadoora Budgam who had set aside the mutation entries, while also analyzing the Collector powers of SDMs.
Further the continuous exercise of Collector Powers by the SDMs throughout the Union Territory even after the passing of the Amendment Act of 2018, and the consequent approval of the said orders by the Higher Forums, without questioning the Statutory Powers of SDMs created an implied approval of the SRO-55.
The Government's Response: S.O. 212 and It’s Flaws
Faced with the judicial inquiry in Manzoor Ahmed Bhat (supra) regarding whether SRO-55 of 2015 was still valid, the executive responded on July 30th 2026 by issuing the Unwanted Notification S.O 212. Issued under Section 6(4) and (5), S.O. 212 conferred the powers of Collector upon all the Sub-Divisional Magistrates in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
While S.O. 212 provides statutory authority going forward, the choice to issue a standard prospective notification rather than a formal clarifying order or statutory amendment leave with several issues unresolved:
a. The Retrospective Gap (2018 to 2026)
By issuing S.O. 212 as a fresh, prospective notification, the government avoided directly addressing whether SRO-55 survived the 2018 amendment and the subsequent 2019 UT Reorganization. If SRO-55 was implicitly repealed or eclipsed when the Legislature enacted Amendment Act of 2018, revenue orders passed by SDMs acting as “Collectors” between 2018 and July 2026 remain vulnerable to jurisdictional challenges. A validating clause or explanatory clarification would have protected past orders from being challenged as nullities.
b. Confusing the Appellate Hierarchy under section 10
The failure to explicitly clarify the dual-capacity framework creates confusion for litigants navigating section 10 epilator routes:
i) Section 11(a): An appeal from an Assistant Collector (1st or 2nd Class) lies to the Collector.
ii) Section 11(b): An appeal from a Collector lies to the Divisional Commissioner.
When an SDM issues an order, does an appeal lie to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner (because the SDM is an Assistant Collector 1st Class under Section 6(2) or directly to the Divisional Commissioner (because the SDM acts as a Collector under S.O. 212)?
Without an administrative clarification accompanying S.O. 212 litigants, risk filing appeals in the wrong forum leading to jurisdictional delays.
Conclusion: The Need for Legislative Clarity
The Government's issuance of Notification S.O. 212 provides a necessary fix, but it acts as an administrative Band-Aid over a deeper statutory rift.
By relying on executive notifications under Section 6 (4) rather than amending Section 6 (2) or passing a statutory validation law, the Revenue Department leaves the dual capacity of SDMs open to ongoing litigation.
Aamir Ahmad Dar (Advocate)
Practicing in the Local Courts of District Baramulla
Having an Experience of More than 7 Years.
Can be reached at:
Mail: advaamirjk@gmail.com
Ph. +91-9622420327