The court emphasized the significance of mutations attested in the absence of a party entitled to land, the applicability of Rule 52 of the Agrarian Reforms Rule 1977, and the entitlement of defense force personnel to resume excess land.

1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 6-7-2010, passed by Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Samba, by virtue of which, he has set aside mutation no. 917 dated 27-10-1982 attested u/s 7 and mutation no. 1367 dated 29-7-2000 attested u/s 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act and remanded the case back to Tehsildar Samba for fresh inquiry for grant of 20% of additional land to respondents.

Petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that officer below has failed to revoke provision of Rule 52 of Agrarian Reform Act while passing the order impugned. That appeal before the court below was time barred and delay was condoned without any reasonable circumstances. That order impugned is not only beyond the jurisdiction of court below, but devoid of legal infirmities. That both the mutations were attested separately on different dates and court below clubbed both the appeals together beyond jurisdiction and in volition of order 23-A. That resumption was applied by some of the respondents, whereas court below has entered other respondents without any power. The resumption of land cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

2. Heard perused the record of court below.

3. It appears that respondents herein filed two appeals before court below, one appeal against the order dated 10-7-1987 passed on mutation no. 917 u/s 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act and another appeal against order dated 29-7-2000 passed in mutation no. 1367 u/s 8 of Act with regard to land measuring 9K-1M under khasra no. 186, and 14K-19M under Khasra 613/183/184 and 185 situated at Rakh Amb Tehsil Samba.

Both appeals were accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. In first appeal it was stated that order was passed without hearing them and mutating officer did not bother to summon appellants under rule 36 of standing order 23-A .That appellants were entitled for resumption of 20% of more land. That mutating officer did not check mutation, as total land measuring 48Kanals for which respondent therein were prospective owners, which had to be resumed by them according to rate of rent paid to appellants. That appellants were in defense forces, so order was bad.

In other appeal, it was stated that, appellants were in defense forces, as admitted in mutation no. 917 u/s 7 of the Act by Tehsildar and as such appellants were entitled to 20% of more land. That total land was 48kanals and respondents therein were prospective owner of land. As per section 4 of Act, land have to be apportioned between the parties in equal share and as the appellants were in defense, they were entitled to resume 20 % of more land, so that appellants could reach to their land which has already resumed to them.

The court below after hearing the parties by way of common order, allowed the appeals and set aside the both the mutations after condoning the delay in filing appeal and remanded the case back to Tehsildar and Tehsildar was directed to conduct enquiry with regard to 20% of more land.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and law concerning the matter. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds taken in the petition. Whereas respondents have supported the impugned order.

5. Any mutation attested in absence of a party entitled to land defined under agrarian reform act 1976, that mutation is held to be nonest and nullity in eye of law .The appeal thus filed against the order of nonest and void mutation is not considered to be time barred, if sufficient cause is shown. Section 5 of Limitation Act is enabling provision for entertaining the appeal against the order of mutation passed in ex-party or in absence of a party, because limitation act is applicable to proceeding of appeal in term of section 22(2) of agrarian reform act. The fact that mutation has been attested in absence of party, amounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, in term of section 5 of Limitation Act.

6. In present case, co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document