The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific findings on the plea of limitation and the requirement for sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in revision petitions under the Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The subject matter of the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondent is the estate of Aziz Sheikh, who died in the year 1985. The said Aziz Sheikh was survived by his wife, son and daughter who are the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and respondent No. 3 respectively. After his demise, a mutation bearing No. 305 was attested on 28.08.1989 with regard to the estate of deceased in favour of petitioner number 1 and 2 in the ratio of 2:1. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 executed two registered gift deeds in favour of respondent No. 3 and 4 respectively. The gift deed for land measuring 2 Kanal-10 marlas comprising survey No. 235 was executed in favour of petitioner No. 3, pursuant to which mutation bearing No. 50 was attested on 22/06/2005 and another gift deed for land measuring 2 Kanal-9½ half marlas comprising survey No. 235, 239 and 251, was executed in favour of petitioner No. 4, pursuant to which mutation No. 53 was attested in favour of petitioner No. 4. The respondent No. 3 and 4 are the sons of the petitioner No. 1 and grandsons of the petitioner No. 2.

2. The mutations bearing numbers 305, 50 and 53 were assailed by the daughter of the petitioner No. 2 and Aziz Sheikh i.e. respondent No. 3 herein, by virtue of three different revision petitions filed before the Learned Financial Commissioner, J&K on 05.09.2007. The respondent No. 3 had assailed the mutation No. 305, 53 and 50 attested in favour of petitioners on the ground that she had been condemned unheard and her presence had been wrongly shown in the impugned mutation bearing no. 305 because she was not identified by Lamberdar, Chowkidar or any other respectable person of the village as required under Standing Order 23-A. It was also one of the ground that the mutating officer had no jurisdiction to deviate from Muslim personal Law as petitioner No. 2 had a right to inherit 1/8th share only out of the total estate of the deceased and further that the respondent No. 3 being natural daughter of the deceased was also entitled to inherit the property left by her father. It was also stated that the petitioner No. 2 further had no right and locus to execute any kind of gift deed with regard to the property in question in favour of the petitioner No. 3 and 4. It was also stated that the respondent No. 3 had no knowledge of the impugned mutation till 18.06.2007 and on this date the respondent No. 3 got the knowledge of the impugned mutation for the first time and immediately filed the revision petitions.

3. The petitioners submitted the written objections and objected to the maintainability of the revision petitions on the ground that the mutation of inheritance was attested in the year 1989 in presence of both the legal heirs of the deceased estate holder, whereby the respondent No. 3 in the open court of the Tehsildar concerned, after being identified by the local respectable, implored the Tehsildar concerned to mutate the whole of the estate of the deceased in favour of her brother i.e. petitioner No. 1. It was also stated that every form of order emerging out of Land Revenue Act is to be challenged as provided under section 12 of Land Revenue Act within the period of 60 days from the date of the order. In the instant case the impugned mutation bearing No. 305 was attested in the year 1989 and that too in the presence of the respondent No. 3 and as such the said revision petition was hopelessly time-barred. So far as other mutations bearing numbers 50 and 53 are concerned it was stated that the same were attested on the basis of registered gift deeds and the gift deeds are required to be challenged before the civil court.

4. The Ld. Financial Commissioner vide order dated 28.01.2015, set aside all the three mutations. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 28.01.2015 (hereinafter referred to as order impugned) passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner on the grounds that the challenge thrown to the mutations was hopelessly timebarred