JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

These two Letters Patent Appeals call in question the common judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 of the learned Writ Court allowing two writ petitions, OWP nos. 1396/2012 and 1397/2012, filed by respondent no.1 herein challenging a common order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner (AR), J&K, Srinagar, in two revision petitions against mutations filed by the appellants herein.

2. The appellants herein filed two revision petitions on 25.07.2005 before the Joint Financial Commissioner, challenging mutation nos. 164 and 192 of village Nagabal, Ganderbal, attested by Naib Tehsildar, Ganderbal, on 14.08.1993 and 09.04.1994, respectively. The respondent no.1 herein, who happened to be respondent no.3 in the aforesaid two revision petitions, filed two separate applications in the aforesaid two revision petitions with the prayer that the revision petitions be dismissed as time barred. It was pleaded by him therein that since the revision petitions against the mutations in question had been filed after almost 12 years’ delay and no application for condonation of delay was filed, nor any sufficient cause was shown for such delay, the revision petitions were not maintainable.

3. The Joint Financial Commissioner, by a common order dated 17.09.2012 dismissed the applications so filed by respondent no.1 herein, holding the revision petitions maintainable and posting the case for further hearing on 15.10.2012.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner, respondent no.1 herein filed two separate writ petitions for quashing the said order insofar as thereby his applications were dismissed, holding that the revision petitions were within time.

5. It is seen that before the learned Writ Court, the point argued was whether revision petitions filed under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 BK (1939 AD) were governed by the relevant provision of the Limitation Act and whether objection to the maintainability of the revision on the ground of latches could be taken at a belated stage. The learned Single Judge held that the revision petitions were expressly barred by time, therefore, it was incumbent on the revision-petitioners to file applications for condonation of delay which, admittedly, had not been filed; and that it was necessary for the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Joint Financial Commissioner to plead and show that they had sufficient cause in filing the revisions after such a huge and inordinate delay of, approximately, eleven years. Holding so, the learned Single Judge set aside the common order dated 17.09.20123 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner impugned in the writ petitions with a liberty to the respondents (appellants herein) to seek redressal of their grievances, if any, before the competent forum, if available, and, further observing: whether the remedy would or would not be barred by the law of limitation shall be determined by that forum alone.

6. The original revision-petitioners, respondents in the writ petition, have challenged the aforesaid decision of the learned Writ Court in the present two LPAs. In the LPA it is pleaded that in their objections/counter affidavit it was, inter alia, stated by the appellants that the condonation of delay falls within the realm of discretionary powers of the Joint Financial Commissioner with the powers of Financial Commissioner and as the Joint Financial Commissioner exercised the discretion of condoning the delay and dismissed the application of respondent no.1 filed by him for dismissing the revision petitions on the said ground, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. The case put forth is that the learned Writ Court without examining and considering the objections raised by them allowed both the writ petitions. It is also pleaded that the writ petitions were not maintainable on account of the fact that the Joint Financial Commissioner