The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to consider the aspects of limitation and the effect of a compromise decree on mutation orders under the Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 16.04.2018, passed by respondents No.2, and orders dated 10.07.2019, 29.01.2020 and 12.10.2021 passed by respondent No.1. Vide order dated 16.04.2018, respondent No.2 has, after treating the appeal of respondent No.4 against mutation No.390 dated 01.09.1986 as a suo moto revision petition, made a recommendation to respondent No.1 to set aside the said order of mutation. Vide order dated 10.07.2019, respondent No.1 has, after accepting the aforesaid recommendation of respondent No.2, set aside the orders passed on mutation No. 390 of estate Qazipura Tehsil, Chadoora and directed attestation of a fresh mutation after following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 23-A. Vide order dated 19.01.2020, respondent No.1 has corrected its order dated 10.07.2019 by making the said order subject to outcome of suit/application, if any pending before the Munsiff. Vide order dated 12.10.2021, respondent No.1 has, while allowing the appeal of respondent No.4 against mutation order Nos.493 and 494 dated 30.01.1990 under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, set aside the said mutations.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he is adopted son of one Mohammad Bhat and in terms of mutation order No.390 dated 01.09.1986, the estate left behind by Mohammad Bhat in village Qazipura Tehsil, Chadoora was mutated in his name, in the name of widow of Mohammad Bhat and in the name of his daughter, respondent No. 4 herein. As per the said mutation order, the estate to the extent of 6 kanals and 3 marlas was attested in favour of respondent No.4 whereas rest of the estate was mutated in equal shares in favour of the petitioner and widow of Mohammad Bhat. Respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid mutation order dated 01.09.1986 by way of an appeal before respondent No.2 on 21.09.2017. Respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 16.04.2018, after treating the said appeal as suo moto revision, observed that mutation No.390 has been attested in disregard of the Muslim Personal Law and in violation of Standing Order No.23-A. Accordingly, a recommendation was made to respondent No.1 for setting aside the said mutation, who, in terms of impugned order dated 10.07.2019 read with order dated 29.01.2020, accepted the recommendation of respondent No.2 and set aside mutation No.390 dated 01.09.1986 and directed attestation of a fresh mutation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Standing Order 23-A.

3. Mutation order No.493 dated 25.08.1989 in respect of land measuring 16 kanals and 03 marlas under Khasra Nos.98-min (1kanal 6 marlas), 10-min (3 kanals 18 marlas), 78-min (2 kanals), 102-min (10 marlas), 96-min (1 kanal 10 marlas), 10-min (3 kanals 5 marlas) and 101-min (3 kanals 4 marlas) situated at Qazipora Tehsil Chadoora, under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was made, whereby the petitioner was shown as the prospective owner of the land in question whereafter vide mutation order No.494 dated 30.01.1990, mutation in respect of aforesaid land under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act came to be attested in favour of the petitioner.

4. The aforesaid two mutation orders came to be challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of an appeal before respondent No.1 on 04.10.2017. Respondent No.1 after proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner herein, decided the appeal by virtue of impugned order dated 12.10.2021. In the said order respondent No.1 observed that the petitioner herein is shown to be the adopted son of estate holder Mohammad Bhat, as such, he cannot claim himself to be the tenant of the land in question. On this ground, respondent No.1 set aside both mutation orders No.493 and 494 and restored the previous mutations.

5. It appears that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.4 and her husband, respondent No.5 herein, before the Court of learned Munsiff Chadoora seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against them so as to prevent their