JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioners against mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu, has been dismissed.

2. Issue notice to private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the first instance. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

3. With the appearance of Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate caveat stands discharged.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

5. By virtue of a revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Jammu, they had challenged mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011, passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu, whereby the private respondents were held entitled to the estate left behind by predecessor-in-interest of the parties, which was passed on remand of mutation No. 194. It appears that mutation No. 194 was attested in favour of Hans Raj, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, by the Naib Tehsildar, Jammu on 20.06.1984. Private respondent No