The main legal point established in the judgment is that any mutation attested without calling interested persons is null and void in the eyes of the law, and proper consideration of facts and law on the point of limitation is essential.

1. By virtue of this order, I am deciding to revision petitions filled by different petitioners, as both have been clubbed together vide order passed in case title Bishamber Dass and others v. Onkar singh and others on 19.2.2010. Both revisions involve same land and mutation no.980 attested on 8.2.1983 by mutating officer Tehsildar, under section 7 of agrarian reform act.

2. First revision petition has been directed against the Order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Samba (Addl. Deputy Commissioner Samba) dt. 2.9.2009, by virtue of which Court below has allowed the appeal of respondents, against mutation no. 980 dated. 8.2.1983 attested by Tehsildar Samba, u/s 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, with regard to the land measuring 25 kanals 15 marlas comprising Khasra No. 164 and 165 situated at village Rakh Amb Tali Tehsil and District. Samba and remanded the case back to Tehsildar for denovo enquiry.

3. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, respondents have no concern over the land covered under Khewat No.17 and Khata No. 52,53 and 54 situate at village Rakh Amb Tali Tehsil and District Samba. That name of respondents predecessors Ravail Singh and Hamil Singh does not exist in Khata No. 53 and in Khewat no. 17. That order impugned is bad in eyes of law as Court below has decided the appeal and an application for condoning the delay together. That delay in filing the appeal was 25 years, which has been condoned by Court below without any sufficient reasons. That mutation no. 980 dt. 8.2.1983, by virtue of which, land has been resumed to the petitioners, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. That there is a big chunk of land and Tehsildar Samba resumed land in question only in favour of petitioners. That Tehsildar while attesting the mutation no. 980 has clearly mentioned that land measuring 51 kanals 10 marlas out of which, Dhani Ram and others have been shown to be owners in possession of half of the land vide mutation 914 u/s 4of Agr. Ref. Act and as petitioners deposited the lagan under sub section 2 of section 7 of Agr. Ref. Act, are thus entitled resumption for land u/s 7 of the Act. That Court below after hearing has set aside the mutation order and remanded the case to Tehsildar Samba without any reason.

4. Counsel for the petitioners while arguing the matter has elaborated all the grounds mentioned in revision petition. He has also submitted written arguments thereby submitted addl. arguments.

5. Whereas a counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order and has taken a primary stand that revision against remand order is not maintainable. He has further argued that no question of public importance or of law points has been involved. Order is based upon finding of facts, which cannot be disturbed in revision.

6. Perusal of records reveals that, respondents herein filed and appeal before Court below against order dated 8.2.1983 of Tehsildar Samba passed on mutation No. 980 attested u/s 7 of Act, on the grounds that their grandfather Ravial Singh was co-owner in Khewat no. 7 and had submitted resumption application along with other co-owner for resumption of land from the tenant of land as per their share. It has further been stated in appeal, that names of their predecessors, namely Ravail and Singh and Hamil Singh also exist in Jamabandi for the year 1987-88-BK in Khewat No. 16 and Khasta no. 51. The name of Ravail Singh also exists in Jamabandi of 1966-67 under Khata No. 53.

7. That while completing the Col no. 8 of mutation under appeal, the name of Ravail Singh has been left by Patwari concerned. In the report Column Patwari reported that Sardar Singh and other co-sharers submitted resumption application within time and so ex-owner were entitled to resume the land to the extent of half of the land under the provision of Agrarian Reform Act. That Tehsildar passed order for resumption of land in favour of Sardar Singh and other for Kh. No. 164(18 ks-05 marklas) and Kh. No. 165 (07 K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document