Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon due to the creation of third-party rights and the need for a reasonable period for the discovery of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the instant petition fled under Article 226, the petitioner has thrown challenge to order dated 28th of January 2021 passed by Respondent 1, whereby the revision petition fled by the petitioner against mutation Order No. 423, dated 8th of October 1997, came to be dismissed.

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been fled, would reveal that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the private respondents herein being their father, left behind a landed estate situated at Chandpora, Srinagar.

3. The Tehsildar concerned is stated to have attested the mutation supra in respect of the said landed estate in favour of Private Respondents 2 to 4, excluding the petitioner and two other legal heirs.

4. It is being stated that upon coming to know about the attestation of the said mutation, the petitioner approached the official respondents in the year 2017 and brought into their notice the fact of her exclusion there from and a copy of the communication in this regard is stated to have been addressed by Tehsildar North, Srinagar, dated 21st of August 2017 to the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, is placed on record and upon their failure to consider her claim, the said mutation consequently is stated to have been challenged before Respondent 1.

5. The impugned order in terms whereof the revision petition of the petitioner herein came to be dismissed by the Respondent 1 is being assailed inter alia on the grounds that the Respondent 1 though had been oblivious to the fact that no period of limitation is prescribed for fling of a revision petition, yet dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, overlooking the law laid down by this Court in case titled as "Baboo Ram vs. The Financial Commissioner and Ors., reported in "JKLR 1972 41"inasmuch as in case titled as "Jan Mohammad vs. Revenue Minister & Ors." reported in "1975 KLJ 11" and followed by judgment passed in case titled as "Smt. Bishno Devi vs. State" reported in "2001 SLJ 86."

It is being further urged in the grounds that the Respondent 1 while considering the revision petition of the petitioner, committed jurisdictional error, having failed to exercise jurisdiction bestowed upon him in terms of Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act.

It is being further urged that the Financial Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner on technical ground of limitation, overlooked the contention raised by the petitioner qua attestation of the mutation in question fraudulently, whereby the petitioner being sister of the Respondents 2 to 4 in whose favour, mutation have had been attested, came to be excluded from inheriting the property of her father, without any lawful justification.

It is being also urged in the grounds that the Financial Commissioner also did not consider the fact that the mutation in question had been attested in the year 1997, when the petitioner have had migrated from the valley and had no knowledge and information about the attestation of the said mutation, which had been attested in collusion of the private respondents with the official respondents and in violation of the law in place.

It is further being urged in the grounds that the Respondent 1 ought to have taken note of all the facts and displayed indulgence, particularly in view of the fact of fraud committed by the revenue officers in collusion with the private respondents while attesting the mutation in question and condoned the delay having occurred in fling of the revision petition, more so, in view of the legal position that no limitation period is prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for fling a revision petition. The Respondent 1 thus in the process, is alleged to have committed grave illegality and impropriety while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner.

6. Objections to the petition have been fled by the Respondents 2 to 5, wherein the contentions raised and the grounds urg