The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to adhere to statutory provisions and rules while attesting mutations, and the requirement for a final determination of rights in the court's decision.

KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI, J. (MEMBER)

1. This is a revision petition presented by the petitioner against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner/Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Pulwama passed on 14.12.2011. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in cultivation of the land measuring 07 kanals and 04 marlas falling under survey No. 326 situated at the village Goripora for more than two decades which stood mutated in his name, besides the fact that the petitioner deposited the levy for the said land starting from the year 1989. Further submitted that the petitioner was in cultivation of the land to the complete knowledge of the respondents, who by their act of acquiescence conveyed their consent as to the mutation that was recorded in favour of the petitioner who was in cultivating possession of the suit land. The relationship of the petitioner with that of the respondents was of the tenant and landlord respectively. Further submitted that the respondent herein preferred the appeal against the mutation order No. 1007 passed by the Tehsildar Agrarian Pulwama with regard to the land measuring 07 kanal 04 marlas falling under survey No. 326. The appeal which was filed by the respondents herein suffered from serious legal defects besides that there was deliberate and willful delay of 20 years in challenging the mutation favouring the petitioner herein, the respondents had taken a refuge of some sale deed in the appeal which has no relevance at all in the eyes of the law owing to the fact that the important question that needs consideration is that as to who was in actual cultivation of the land in question and the execution of the Sale Deed cannot frustrate the purport and aim of Agrarian Reforms Act. The appeal in which impugned order has been passed nowhere reflects that respondents herein had kept the land in question for their personal use. The mutation recorded in favour of petitioner are based on the fact that the land in question was not in personal use cultivation of the landlords but of tenant (petitioner herein). The impugned order is bad for the reasons that on the one hand the respondents herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land from 1988 and on the other hand, they stated that they have no knowledge about the mutation dated 1989. Besides that the levy was filed by the revisionist (petitioner) and not by the respondents herein. The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.12.2011 on the following grounds:-

I. That the impugned order has been passed in total derogation of the law as the respondents have taken contrary stands in their appeal and the impugned order should not have been output despite their contradictions.

II. That the impugned order has been passed in a most mechanical and technical manner and the said order does not fall within the contours law and needs to be set aside.

III. That the impugned order is bad for the reason that the petitioner herein being in possession, pays land revenue to the state which is strong evidence as to the fact of tenancy.

IV. That the impugned order is bad as the commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama has not understood that the question of ownership was not to be decided and the question of actual cultivation was to be decided. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama has acted more like a civil court and exceeded the jurisdiction not vested in him.

V. That the impugned order is bad as the commissioner agrarian Reforms Pulwama has set aside the mutation which has been passed after fulfilling the requirements of standing order 23-A.

VI. That the impugned order passed by the commissioner is bad and is vague as he has not taken into consideration the period of limitation. The period of limitation has been condoned in a very casual manner.

VII. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Pulwama) is bad for the reason that the respondents have miserably failed to show their claim on the suit land. The commissioner has pas