The law of limitation is meant for prudent and diligent persons and cannot be used as a tool for entertaining appeals after the limitation period.

1. Petitioner has filed present revision petition, against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda, with powers of Agrarian Reform commissioner Doda dated 20.10.2001, by virtue of which, appeal of petitioner filed against mutations no.62 and mutation no. 72 under agrarian reform act, have been dismissed.

2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that land bearing Kh No. 208/79 min (6 kanals 14 marlas), Khasra no. 80 (9 Kanals 13 marlas), Kh No. 96 (12 kanals -17 marlas) Kh No. 99 (4 kanals 10 marlas) and Kh No. 104 measuring 08 kanals 08 marlas situated at village Jaginda Tehsil Badherwah, had been purchased by one Lakhmi Chand S/O Durga from Faquir Chand S/O Gomaon Brahamin for consideration through sale deed duly register prior to 1968. That this facts has been duly recorded in Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. That petitioner purchased the said land from Lakhmi chand S/O Durga for consideration of Rs. 5000/- in 1970 and possession was taken. That sale deed could not be executed and registered in this behalf as there was a ban for doing so. That on 11.12.1973 Lakhmi Chand vendor, executed an agreement to sell, which was not registered. That on 26.10.82, a mutation No. 62 was attested by Naib Tehsildar, in which it was held that land in question was under the ambit of definition of land covered under Agrarian Reform Act. The rights of petitioner were extinguished and proceeding under section 31 of Agr. Ref Act was recommended. That vide mutation no; 72 dated 12.3.88, the land in question was held to be in unlawful possession of petitioner and levy of 40 times of actual levy was ordered to be recovered from petitioner. That petitioner challenged the above said mutation no. 62 and 72 in appeal but same was dismissed on 20.11.2001, on question of limitation.

3. That impugned order is against facts and law and contrary to provision of Agrarian Reforms Act. That mutations impugned had been attested in ex-party and petitioner was not called. That mutation have been attested in violation of order No 22 and 23-A.

4. Heard, perused the records of Court below. I have also gone through the relevant law governing the matter.

5. From the perusal of records, it reveals that one Dharma Singh filed an appeal against mutation no; 72 and petitioner herein also filed an appeal against mutation no; 62 attested u/s 4 of Agrarian Reform Act and mutation no; 72 attested u/s 31 of Agrarian Reform Act. Court below passed a common order in both the appeals, on the ground that subject matter was the same.

6. In appeal filed by Dharam Singh, petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent. In appeals, orders of mutations were challenged on the grounds that Niab Tehsildar was not competent to pass order u/s 31 of Agr. Ref. Act and orders were passed an ex-party.

7. Court below after hearing the parities dismissed both the appeals on the grounds that, appellants were having knowledge of mutations, so appeals were held to be time barred. The concluding of order para of order impunged 20.10.2001 reads as under;

8. I have gone through the record available on file and given my due consideration involved in the matter. On 1.5.2000 the parties have stated that the case be decided on merit. So far mutation order no. 72 is concerned. It has been passed on the basis of mutation order no. 62 U/S 4 dated 26.10.82. The contention of Dharm Singh that he obtained the knowledge for attestation of said mutation no. 72 on 3.5.88 can not be relied upon as the said Dharma Singh was very much present at the time of attestation of mutation no. 62 dated 26.10.82. Moreover he has appended his signatures on the mutation itself. Similarly the appellant Bhag Singh has contended that he obtained the knowledge op the attestation of mutation order no. 62 and 72 on 3.5.88 is unbelievable as the appeal has been filed against mutation no. 62 ( being the basic mutation on the basis of which mention order no; 72 has been attested) after a lapse of more than six years. Fur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document