The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Agrarian Reforms Act requires a landlord-tenant relationship for mutation, and the law of limitation must be applied rigorously.

1. Petitioner has filed the present revision, thereby challenging the order of court below dt.13.6.2003, by virtue of which court below has dismissed the appeal of petitioner with regard to mutation no. 1376 dated 9-10-99 and mutation no. 1083 dated 16-3-1997 u/s 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, with regard to land measuring 7K-9M Marla under kh. no. 484,, 3K-7M under kh. 485, 1K-15M under kh. no. 496, 4 Marla under kh. 19 situated at Village Jandorore Tehsil Ram Nagar, has been transferred on the name of respondents.

2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that he has been condemned unheard and no opportunity of being heard was given to him. That petitioner is adopted son of Mst Baghan, who was also his real grand mother (maternal side). That mother of Baghan, Mst Janki was survived by Mst. Baghan and after her death she was only legal heir. Mst. Baghan was cultivating the land through her husband namely kamlu, after the death of Mst. Baghan and her husband, petitioner is in cultivating possession of land. A mutation u/s 4 was attested in his favour and it was set aside. That petitioner thereafter filed appeal before Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, who on 13-3-03 decided the matter without giving him an opportunity of being heard. That petitioner being adopted son of Mst. Baghan was cultivating the land, so order of court below is not sustainable. While attesting the mutation, standing order 23-A was not followed.

3. I have heard both the counsel at length and perused the record and written arguments submitted by respondents.

4. In the present after going through the relevant record, it is evident that Mst. Janki was owner of land, her son in law Kamlu Ram was residing with her as Khana Damad. The Girdawari of Sh. Kamlu Ram was entered on behalf of his mother in law Mst Janki. As Kamlu Ram was not paying rent to his mother in law Mst. Janki, so there existed no relationship between Mst Janki and Kamlu as landlord and tenant.

5. Agrarian Reforms Act is meant for providing land of landlord to tiller, who was cultivating the land in Kharif 1971. A tenant who was in cultivating possession of land and was paying rent to landlord would get benefit of section 4 and 8 of act. As per section 4 of Act rights, title and interest of land lord extinguishes to State, if he was not in cultivating possession of land in Kharif 1971. This follows by conferring right as prospective owner on tenants, who were in cultivating possession of land in girdawari of Kharif 1971. So a relationship of land lord and tiller is sine-quo for attesting the mutation u/s 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act.

6. In present case, as discussed above, there existed no relationship of landlord and tiller between Mst. Janki owner and kamlu. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that, there was ever relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Mutation reveals that, Petitioner herein was present on spot at the time of its attestation on 9.10.1999, because his name is apparent on copy of mutation.

7. Further mutations challenged before the court below were dated 13-10-1999 and 16-3-1997 and appeal was preferred on 13-6-03. As per section 22 of act, appeal is to be preferred within 60 days from order, so appeal was time barred and no reasonable and sufficient reasons have been mentioned in memo of appeal and application under section 5 of limitation act before court below. In application under section 5 of limitation act, it has been mentioned that, he came to know about mutation on 5.5.2000 through patwari of area. He applied for copy on 6.5.2000 and received copy on that date. Bare perusal of these factual averments, it is evident, these have been prepared and not actually happened. Because mutation reveals, presence of petitioner at the time of attestation, along with other person on spot on 9.10.1999

8. Law is very much clear that each and every day after the limitation period, is to be explained by a person seeking benefit of section 5 of limi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document