The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the requirement to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in appeals.

Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Commissioner - Land Dispute - A. R. Act, 1976, Section 4, Section 8 - The court dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were time-barred. The mutations under section 4 and 8 of the Act were found to be rightly attested, and the petitioner was deemed to have no locus standi to challenge the mutations due to lack of title or possession of the land.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed two appeals challenging mutations under the A. R. Act, claiming ownership of land donated for religious purposes. The appeals were dismissed by the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner on the grounds of being time-barred.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mutations were rightly attested and that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge them. The appeals were dismissed due to being time-barred, and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown.
Issues: Ownership of donated land, validity of mutations, locus standi of the petitioner, and condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mutations were rightly attested, the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge them, and the appeals were time-barred with no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and all connected miscellaneous applications were consigned to record. The file of the court below was sent back along with the order, and the present file was consigned to record after compilation.

1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of respondent no. 1 dated 8.5.2008, by virtue of which he has dismissed two appeals of petitioner while exercising the jurisdiction under Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Udhampur.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that he is owner of land measure 9 kanals and 10 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 1571/169 situated at Jandrore, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur. That his forefather donated the land for religious purposes. That land measuring 3 kanals and 7 marlas was donated for its use for religious activity to general public. This land is Banjar Qadeem from old times. That out of this land measuring 3 kanals and 7 marlas, there is a Peer Sathan on 1 kanals and 10 marlas, on 10 marlas there is located Masjid along with one room, land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas has been utilized for drain, the remaining land was donated to Education Deptt. for school in 1964. That father of respondents in connivance with Revenue Officers got the mutation of the land attested unlawfully in 1981 u/s 4 of act and in 1992 u/s 8 of act respectively.

3. That in 2006 respondent abruptly starting interfering in the land afore stated and made attempt to raise construction. That when it was objected, the father of respondent no. 3 declared that Revenue entries are on their names. After coming to know about this fact, he filed two appeals before the respondent no. 1 and both have been dismissed being time barred. That respondent no.1 without appreciating the grounds of the appeal and without appreciating the true matrix of the case dismissed the case. That order of mutations passed by respondent no. 2 is illegal and bad. That father of the private respondents died on 13.2.2008 before pronouncement of judgment and so the order is also illegal.

4. Heard both the counsels at length and perused and record of the Trial Court.

5. It reveals that petitioner herein filed two appeals, one challenging mutation no. 1113 u/s 8 of A. R. Act dated 19.8.1992 and other thereby challenging the mutation no. 1083 u/s 4 of Act dated 23.12.1981 before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Udhampur. In both the appeals, he narrated facts which have been narrated in the revision petition. Along with appeals condonation of delay applications were also filed. In the condonation of delay application, it was pleaded that he was totally unaware of passing of mutations by Tehsildar. He came to know in this week when respondents starting constructing shops. When he enquired from Revenue Office, he came to know about impugned mutations.

6. The Appellant Court after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and law, dismissed the appeals on 8.5.2008 by way of a common order on the ground that appeal being time barred.

7. Section 21 of A. R. Act, 1976 deals with appeals and revisions. It reads as under:-

(3) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates.

(4) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit;

Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard.

8. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention.

9. I have care fully gone through record of court below which reveal that in girdawari of kharif 1971, name of c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document