1. Invoking powers of revision under section 15 of Land Revenue Act, learned Financial Commissioner has set aside two mutations, one bearing no. 2855 dated 25.03.1999 and another no. 2853 dated 09.12.1999. Two revision petitions against the said two mutations were instituted on 10.07.2002.

2. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the revisions were barred by limitation should have been dismissed as such as warranted under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Instead, Financial Commissioner has held that the issue of limitation is irrelevant. Though mutations admittedly have been attested at the back of the respondents but they had the knowledge which they had gained while pursuing the case pending in the Court of Munsiff, Chadoora, petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of learned Financial Commissioner.

3. Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 to 6 contended that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the revision. Power vested with Financial Commissioner has an object of undoing the wrong so as to bring record in tune with the factual requirements. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this Court being reported in 2005 (II) SLJ 716, 2001 SLJ 86, 2003 (II) SLJ 509 and 2005 SLJ 767.

4. Before addressing as to whether any period of limitation is prescribed for filing revision under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, noticing of factual aspect is indispensable.

5. One Ama Khanday has died survived by five daughters and the widow. Succession mutation No. 2853 has been attested on 09.12.1999 whereunder legacy of the deceased has been attested to the extent of 1/8th in favour of Mst. Khatiji, widow and rest in favour of Mst. Akhtara (petitioner). In the mutation, Patwari concerned has recorded Pedigree table showing Mst. Akhtara as only daughter. Tehsildar with eyes shut has attested the mutation. Both Tehsildar and Patwari have acted in derogation of STANDING ORDER 23-A. The mutation on the face of it has been illegally attested that too at the back of the respondents (legal heirs of the deceased). The mutation is neither covered by personal law nor covered by customary law.

6. Another mutation no. 2855 attested on 25.03.1999 has also been attested at the back of the respondents (legal heirs) whereunder 6 kanals and 15 marlas of land covered under Survey No. 1366 based on oral gift has been attested that too in a casual fashion. The learned Financial Commissioner, noticing the nature of the mutations attested, has rightly opined that the mutations have been attested illegally and he shall be failing in his duty in not rectifying the wrong committed and has finally remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar, Chadoora for fresh orders and has also observed that the administrative action be taken against the attesting officer concerned.

7. According to appearing counsel for the petitioner, Sub Section 2 of Section 12 of Land Revenue Act is applicable. So as per Section 3 of Limitation Act, revision should have been dismissed as barred by limitation. It is true that when any suit, appeal and application are filed after the period of limitation prescribed by first Schedule, it shall have to be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as defence.

8. The question is as to whether any period is prescribed for filing revision under Land Revenue Act so as to attract applicability of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, my answer is in negative for the following reasons :-

(a) Conjoint reading of sections 11, 12, 13 and 15 of Land Revenue Act clearly indicate that the legislature in its wisdom has not prescribed any period of limitation for exercising revisional power under section 15 of Land Revenue Act. For appeals as per Section 12, period of limitation is prescribed, for review, as per Section 13, period of limitation is prescribed, whereas under Section 15 no period of limitation is prescribed. The supervisory power vested in Financial Com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document