IMPORTANT POINT : Mutation – When no limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition, same must be filed within a reasonable time.

Judgment :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

The appellant has challenged judgment/order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No.27/2015 titled “Gh. Qadir Rather and another vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, & others”, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 has been allowed.

2. It appears that respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging order dated 31.12.2014 passed by respondent No.3 herein whereby orders passed on mutation Nos.383 and 608 of Estate Lalpora Tehsil Baramulla were set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tehsildar concerned for passing fresh orders in accordance with Muslim Personal Law.

3. The case of the writ petitioners before the Writ Court was that their mother, Mst. Zaina, was married as a Khana Nisheen Dukhter during the life time of her father, namely, Samad. It was averred that immediately after the death of Samad, mutation No.608 with regard to land measuring 11 marlas falling under Khasra No.2059 was attested in the name of Mst. Zaina in the year 1945. Similarly, mutation No.383 of the year 1948 with regard to land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas falling under Khasra No.2059 was also attested in the name of Mst. Zaina in presence of Mst. Khatji who happened to be the mother of appellant herein. The case of the writ petitioners was that the aforesaid mutations were attested in favour of Mst. Zaina as per the custom and pursuant to the attestation of mutations, name of Mst. Zaina was reflected in the Record of Rights of the year 1960-61. After the death of Mst. Zaina in the year 1990, the property in question devolved upon the writ petitioners and mutation No.1723 dated 13.08.1994 was attested in their favour. It was contended by the writ petitioners that after more than 60 years of attestation of aforesaid mutations, the appellant herein filed a belated revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K Srinagar, and the said authority without taking into account the fact that the revision petition was highly belated and that at the relevant time according to the custom a Khana Nisheen daughter could inherit property from her father to the exclusion of other legal heirs, allowed the revision petition and set aside the aforesaid mutation orders.

4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) by filing a reply thereto. In his reply, it was submitted by the appellant that pursuant to order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, the Tehsildar concerned has passed mutation order No.3726 dated 15.01.2015, whereunder the property of Samad Khan has been mutated in favour of his legal heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. It was also averred that the appellant and the other legal heirs of Mst. Khatji have filed a suit for partition and perpetual injunction against the writ petitioners before the Court of Munsiff, Tangmarg, and in the said suit, an order came to be passed on 19th of August, 2013, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. It was contended that because the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, has been given effect by the Tehsildar, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable without laying a challenge to the order of the Tehsildar. It was further contended that no limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition against an order of mutation. The appellant further denied the existence of any custom whereunder a Khana Nisheen daughter was entitled to inherit the estate of her father to the exclusion of other legal heirs.

5. The learned Writ Court after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition in terms of the impugned judgment. While doing so, the learned Writ Court held that even if the Statue may not prescribe time limit for exercise of revisional power, that will not give the authority determining the matter th