1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order passed on 28-04-2008 by the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms in file No. 135-ADC/R titled Muhammad Ismail Padder Vs. Abdul Salam Padder and another.

2. Briefly put, the circumstances giving rise to the present revision petition are that after the mutation Nos. 2026, 2116, 2470, 2478 and 2591 were attested by Tehsildar Dooru, the same were challenged by Abdul Salam Padder (the respondent No. 1 in the present Revision petition) by way of an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag on 20-01-2001. The Ld. Commissioner while disposing of the appeal vide his order dated 16-06-2005 set aside the mutations attested by Tehsildar Dooru and simultaneously ordered for de novo inquiry by Tehsildar concerned. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-

"The appeals are accepted and the impugned mutations are set aside. The matter is remanded to Tehsildar concerned for denovo inquiry on spot in presence of parties and to attest fresh mutations in view of the partition made by the parties".

3. This order made by the Ld. Commissioner was not challenged by either of the parties and accordingly acting in compliance with the said order, the Tehsildar concerned made a fresh order attesting mutation No. 3092 on 15-02-2007. This order/attestation made by Tehsildar concerned was challenged by the present petitioner before the court of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on various grounds but the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed on 28-04-2008 on a technical point of limitation by rejecting the application for condonation of delay. This order passed by the ADC Anantnag has been now challenged through the instant revision petition on the following grounds:-

i) That the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the factual aspects as well as the legal aspects of the case without proper consideration and application of law laid down regarding the subject.

ii) That the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical and casual manner without any adjudication upon the correctness of mutation attested by Tehsildar concerned and without ascertaining as to whether Tehsildar concerned had conducted the denovo inquiry on spot in presence of the parties and in terms of court direction dated 16-06-2005.

iii) That the Ld. Commissioner without considering the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter has taken a short cut method to dismiss the appeal on a technical ground without any just cause by ignoring the submissions made by the petitioner before the Ld. Court to the effect that impugned mutation by Tehsildar concerned was attested at his back on 25-12-2006 and revised on 15-02-2007 without any notice to him, about which the petitioner got knowledge on 2-7-2007. The petitioner had applied for certified copy which was issued to him on 10-07-2007 and accordingly the appeal was filed by him on 11-07-2007 without any delay.

iv) That though the petitioner had got the knowledge of order passed by the Tehsildar on 10-07-2007 and appeal was filed on 11-07-2007, still then a separate application was filed for condonation of delay but without making any kind of inquiry as to whether impugned mutation attested by Tehsildar was actually attested at the back of the petitioner as was contended by petitioner or otherwise the Ld. Commissioner has erred in making observation in contrast to the official record vis-a-vis the alleged signature of the petitioner on the copy of mutation and his participation in the denovo inquiry before Tehsildar concerned.

v) That the impugned order has been passed without any reasoning and the mandate of law laid down on the subject.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

5. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has agitated all the grounds taken by him in the present revision petition and c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document