The attestation of mutation based on the agreement of the parties cannot be challenged in revision, and unchallenged mutation orders, attested with the consent of the parties, may be caught by laches, rendering them unsustainable.

1. In terms of judgment dated 13.02.2014, rendered in OWP No. 386/98, the order dated 14.05.2007, passed by Financial Commissioner in revision No. 62 of 1993 and the order dated 23rd June, 1998, passed in review No. 28/1997, have been set aside. Dissatisfied therewith, instant appeal has been preferred, wherein it is projected that the revision petition, as was filed before the Financial Commissioner, was hopelessly barred by limitation, no reason has been recorded for condoning the huge delay. The basic order recorded on mutation dated 21.01.1962 is based on compromise of the parties.

2. On the death of Ramzan Sofi, mutation of succession regarding estate left behind by him was to be attested. The proceedings initiated for attestation of mutation of succession were placed before the Naib Tehsildar concerned. Vis-a-vis landed property left behind by Ramzan Sofi in village Arwa Tehsil Beerwa District Budgam, mutation No. 370 has been attested on 21st January, 1962. The order has been recorded on the said mutation to the effect that the matter may be presented for attestation at Village Arwa on 21st January, 1962. On 21st January, 1962, on spot proceedings were initiated. The parties had divulged they be given time for mutual settlement. Then on the same day i.e. 21st January, 1962, again proceedings have been presented before the Naib Tehsildar as the co-sharers and four daughters, of the deceased Ramzan Sofi, namely, Mst. Khatji, Mst. Rahti, Mst. Mehra and Mst. Khati, were stated to have entered into a compromise. The statement of the four daughters of the deceased is shown to have been recorded on the same day separately, wherein they have agreed that they have entered into compromise and in view of the settlement arrived at, the landed property of Ramzan Sofi shall be mutated equally i.e. one half in favour of daughters of the deceased and another half in favour of co-sharers. On the basis of said statement, which is available on writ records, mutation has been attested on 21.01.1962.

3. In the year 1993, i.e. after a gap of 31 years, the said mutation No. 370 has been assailed by medium of revision petition before Additional Commissioner, who, after examining the records, made a reference under Section 15(3) of Land Revenue Act recommending setting aside of the mutation as having been attested in contravention to Muslim Personal Law. The Financial Commissioner accepted the reference and while setting aside mutation No. 370 vide detailed order dated 14.05.1997, remanded case to Assistant Commissioner, Budgam, for de novo enquiry. Dissatisfied therewith, review petition was filed by respondent and others. Same has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 23rd June, 1998.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent preferred writ petition(OWP) No. 386/98, which has been decided vide judgment dated 13.02.2014. Both the orders passed by Financial Commissioner have been set aside. Learned Single Judge while relying on the judgment Mst. Zaina v. Financial Commissioner & ors, reported in SLJ 1983 J&K:JKJ soft/1501, has in para 5 of the said judgment opined that the order passed on mutation by Naib Tehsildar being agreed order could not be challenged in revision. Furthermore, subsequent to the attestation of mutation, Mehda (one of the co-sharer) executed a sale deed, therefore, there is no question of any further de novo enquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that mutation No. 370 has been attested by Naib Tehsildar when he was not competent do so. Buttressing the submission, he would submit that a disputed mutation, in view of Standing Order 23-A, is to be attested by Tehsildar. The order passed by Naib Tehsildar was without jurisdiction so was rightly set aside by Financial Commissioner. This submission is controverted by learned counsel for respondents by highlighting that, in fact, proceedings were taken up on 20th January, 1962. Then were taken up on spot i.e. in the village conce