ORDER :

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioners crave the indulgence of this Court in quashing the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), in a revision petition bearing file No. 290/FC-AP. The petitioners also implore for the grant of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb their possession in respect of the land that forms the subject matter of the petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent No. 3 herein (the petitioner before the Ld. Financial Commissioner) has abused the process of law with ulterior motives. The judgment passed by the learned Financial Commissioner is illegal. The Shariat Act of 2007 does not apply to the case in hand where the mutations have been attested before a period of more than five decades, and that if such an interpretation is allowed to be given to the Act, thousands of mutations attested under the Customary Law will have to be set aside which will open a Pandora's Box.

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which this petition has been filed require to be enumerated here and these are that the respondent No. 3 here in this petition filed a revision on 15.05.2013 before the learned Financial Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar, against the mutation Nos. 176 and 179 attested on 23.09.1959 viz-a-viz the landed estate of Jamal-ud-Din situate at Margund, Tehsil Ganderbal (now Kangan). Jamal-ud-Din had contracted two marriages, one with Mst. Bakhti and the other with Mst. Saira. Mst. Bakhti gave birth to a son from the ribs of Jamal-ud-Din and his name was Yaqoob. The petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner and Reshma were born from the thighs of Mst. Sara. Reshma is the mother of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as they figured before the learned Financial Commissioner. Yaqoob died during the life time of his father leaving behind two sons, namely, Ayoub Gojar, respondent No. 1 in the revision petition and Mehboob, who is survived by four daughters, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 before the learned Financial Commissioner.

3. In order to understand the relation of the parties in the right perspective the pedigree table as it relates to them is delineated herein below:

4. The petitioner assailed the order passed in the two mutations detailed herein, before the learned Financial Commissioner, mainly on the grounds: (a) that the parties being Muslims are governed by the norms of Muslim Personal Law and the impugned mutations have neither been attested under the Muslim Personal Law nor under the Customary Law; (b) that no enquiry has been conducted by the mutating officer before attesting the mutations; (c) that two separate mutations have been attested in respect of the one and the same inheritance; (d) that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the attestation of the mutations; and (e) that the respectable persons of the village were not associated with the mutation proceedings.

The learned Financial Commissioner after scanning and evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the material placed before him, came to the following conclusion:

"2. The case was heard over several dates. Both counsels filed written arguments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has repeated the grounds taken by him in the memo of Revision. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has stated that the petitioner himself is a beneficiary of the mutation; has no locus to challenge the mutations, and that the Revision is time bar