JUDGMENT :

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 31.12.2014, passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), in a revision petition bearing file No. 335/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. 2 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. 2 here in this petition filed a revision on 10.07.2013 before the learned Financial Commissioner, J & K, Srinagar, against the mutation Nos. 383 and 608 attested in the year 1946 viz-a-viz the landed estate of Samad Khan situate at Lalpora, Tehsil Tangmarg. Samad Khan was blessed with three daughters namely Sara, Zaina & Mst. Khatija. Samad Khan died more than 70 years before and thereafter the landed property which the deceased Samad Khan was holding at that time was mutated in favour of Mst. Zaina in the year 1946 in the view and presence of Mst. Khatija the mother of the respondent No. 2. Mst. Zaina died in the year 1990 and thereafter the property in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner on 13.08.1994.

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 petitioners assailed the order passed in the two mutations detailed herein, before the learned Financial Commissioner on the grounds, inter alia that the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2, is grossly barred and hit by latches and after the gap of 70 years, the settled inheritance of the estate holder, Samad Khan, has been disturbed which is against the principles of natural justice. The family of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 was admittedly governed by Custom which was prevalent at the time of attestation of mutations and according to the customs, only Khana Nisheen daughter could inherit from their father. However, this aspect has not been considered by the respondent No. 1. Both the mutations bearing Nos. 608 and 383 had attained finality and the same had been incorporated in the Record of Rights. Therefore, the record of rights cannot be altered or challenged after the lapse of so many decades. These two mutations pertain to two different Khasra Nos. and even the mutation No. 1723, dated 13.08.1994 with regard to the estate of Mst. Zaina has been attested in favour of the petitioners in accordance with the Custom and this mutation stands unchallenged. The Shariat Application Act, 2007, which came into force in the year 2007, is not at all applicable to the inheritance which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The respondent No. 1 has committed grave error while deciding the rev