The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that parties are not condemned unheard, highlighting the principles of natural justice.

1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (With powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu dated 10.2.2003, by virtue of which court below has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against mutation no. 209 attested u/s 7 of Agrarian Reform Act 1976, pertaining to Khasra No. 3 land measuring 18 kanals 18 marlas situated at Village Chack Pouni band Tehsil jammu.

2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, she was owner of land and she filed a resumption application before Tehsildar. That Naib Tehsildar jammu attested that mutation no; 209 u/s 7 and rejected his application form without assigning the reason. That Naib Tehsildar was not competent under Agrarian Reforms Act to attest the mutation. That resumption application is always presumed to be disputed matter and so Niab Tehsildar was not competent to attest the mutation. That instructions given in standing order 23-A have not been followed. That no notice was issued to her by Mutating Officer. That land is situated at village Chack Pouni Bandh Brahamana, whereas mutation has been attested at Village Dumal. That Court below has dismissed the appeal as time barred and merit has not been discussed, which has caused injustice to him.

3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. Counsel for petitioner has also filed written arguments.

4. From the perusal of records it reveals that, petitioner filed an appeal with regard to mutation no; 209 attested by Niab Tehsildar on 2.1.89 attested under section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of respondents. In appeal petitioner challenged the mutation on various ground of procedural lapse committed by Mutating officer while attesting the mutation. With regard to delay in filing the appeal, an application u/s 5 of limitation Act was also filed. The grounds mentioned application are that, during recent operation she was told by settlement staff that Naib Tehsildar Jammu has attested the mutation and rejected her resumption form.That said information was available to her on 20.11.95 and thereafter she applied for copy of concerned mutation. That only copy of Parat patwar was made available to her on 27th Nov., 1995 but Parat Sarkar was not provided to her as it was told to her that it has not been deposited in concerned Office. Court below after hearing the parties rejected the appeal as time barred. The concluding para of order reads as under:

5. I have carefully examined the record placed on the file and also applied my mind thoughtfully to the legal as well as factual aspects of the case including contentions for both the parties and found that mutation No. 209 under section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 of Village Check Puni Wand has been disposed of by Naib Tehsildar, Jammu on 02-01-1989 and appeal has been filed on 30-11-1995 i.e. after a period of more than 6 years, whereas period of limitation under section 22 sub section 1 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is only 60 days and the application seeking condo nation of delay in filing the appeal does not contain any satisfactory/reasonable reasons which would justify delay of more than 6 years. Secondly, the appellant has filed appeal on the basis of "Parat -- Patwar mutation" and failed to provide a copy of Part-Sarkar of mutation till date.

6. It is, pertinent to mention here that no appeal lies on a copy of "Parat Patwar of mutation". So without going into further merits of the case. The appeal is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed without any costs on the point of limitation only. Order announced in the presence of both the parties. File shall be consigned to record after its due completion.

Order Announced:

10.2.2003	Sd/-
	Jt.Agr.Reforms Commissioner
	(With Powers of Commissioner Agr. Reforms), Jammu.

    7. Bare perusal of order impugned, it is evident that court below has dismissed appeal of petitioner on twin grounds. Firstly that, appeal is time barred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document