The main legal point established is that mutation orders do not confer or deprive title to immovable property, and the law of limitation cannot extinguish vested legal rights in property disputes.

1. One Mst. Rahti, Estate Holder, was married to Wali Mohammad Hafiz who contracted 2nd Marriage with Mst. Fazi. Mst. Rahti begot two daughters and one son namely Mst. Fazi, Mst. Azizi and Ali Mohammad to Wali Mohammad Hafiz, her husband.

2. The 2nd wife Mst. Fazi begot Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rashid, Mohammad Shafi and Mohammad Latief to Wali Mohammad Hafiz.

3. Mst. Fazi is respondent No. 4 in this writ petition and children of Wali Mohammad Hafiz by Mst. Fazi are petitioners in this writ petition. Mst. Azizi and Ali Mohammad died issueless. The Property of Mst. Rahti was mutated in the name of Ali Mohammad Hafiz the real brother of respondent No. 4 and in terms of order on mutation No. 134, the Estate of Ali Mohammad S/o Rahti and brother of respondent No. 4 was mutated in favour of respondent No. 4 and she was given one share excepting Khewat No. 114 and rest of the Estate was mutated in the name of present petitioners. This Mutation order was challenged in Appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority which constrained the respondent No. 4 to challenge the same in Revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. Settlement Commissioner made three references to Financial Commissioner Revenue, who vide order impugned in this petition accepted the references and set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to Tehsildar concerned for attesting of fresh Mutation strictly in accordance with Muslim Law. It is directed that Estate of Rahti as well as Ali and Azizi be mutated in favour of respondent No. 4. It is this order and also the order passed on same date by Financial Commissioner, Revenue on the Revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the orders of Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 21st April, 2011 read with order of Collector, Budgam dated 16th June, 2005 which was also dismissed. These orders are called in question in this petition.

4. Mr. Arshid Andrabi learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders on Mutation passed in 50’s could not be challenged at belated stage in Revision Petition. Learned counsel submitted that the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue is illegal, as he has entertained time barred Revision petition. Learned counsel also submitted that the order on Mutation was consent order and respondent No. 4 had consented to the passing of the said order(s), so no Appeal would lie against the said order in view of the mandate contained in Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No. 4 has acted upon the order of mutation passed in the year 2006, inasmuch as, she executed the sale deed in respect of the some land share of which fell to her share in terms of aforesaid mutation order. Learned counsel on the pointed question of the Court, however, admitted that in law petitioners are not entitled to inherit the Estate left behind by Mst. Rahti. Learned counsel further submitted that in last few decades the part of estate has changed hands.

5. Learned counsel also submitted that settlement proceedings have also taken place which has completely changed the factual and legal scenario in this case and this settled position could not have been unsettled by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. Learned counsel also submitted that Financial Commissioner Revenue does not have any knowledge of Revenue law, this is how illegal order has came into existence.

6. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 2006(II) SLJ 449. Learned counsel further submitted that if the Revenue Authorities take suomoto cognizance of the matter then issue of limitation would not arise, but when any party invoke Revisional jurisdiction of the Court, then the question of limitation does arise.

7. Mr. M. A. Qayoom learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the so called consent given by the respondent No. 4 in mutation proceedings would not stop her in law to stake claim