JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashment of order dated, 23.08.2016, passed by the respondent 3 herein along with the order dated, 05.02.2016, passed by the respondent 2 herein.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition as emerging therefrom would reveal that the respondent 5 to 9 herein filed a revision petition before respondent 3 herein against Mutation No. 510, dated 30.09.1998, having been attested in favour of the respondent 1 to 3 being petitioners herein on multiple grounds urged in the revision petition. The said revision petition came to be contested by the respondents -petitioners herein and consequently the same came to be allowed by the respondent 3 in terms of order dated 05.02.2016, and while allowing the same, a reference thereof came to be made by the respondent 3 to respondent 2 in terms of Section 15 sub-section (3) of the J&K LAND REVENUE ACT , Svt. 1996.

3. Being aggrieved of the order dated, 05.02.2016, supra passed by the respondent 3 whereby the impugned mutation 510 had been set-aside and reference made to the respondent 2, the respondents-petitioners herein also filed an independent revision petition calling in question the order of respondent 3, dated 05.02.2016, supra. The respondent 2 upon considering the reference order dated, 05.02.2016, as also the revision petition supra filed against the said reference order by the respondents-petitioners herein passed impugned order dated, 23.08.2016, and the respondent 2 while on one hand allowed the reference made by the respondent 3 in terms of order dated 05.02.2016, on the other hand dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents-petitioners herein against the order dated, 05.02.2016.

4. Both the orders dated, 05.02.2016 and 23.08.2016, are being challenged in the instant petition by the petitioners on the grounds urged in the petition.

5. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents opposing the contentions raised and grounds urged therein the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Mr. K.S. Puri, appearing counsel for the petitioners while making his submission would contend that the impugned orders passed by the respondent 3 and 2 respectively have been passed overlooking the factual aspect of the matter, in that, the petitioners herein have had acquired the land in question pursuant to an agreement to sell and consequently got mutation attested thereof.

Mr. Puri would further contend that the respondent 3, while entertaining the revision petition filed by the respondent 5 to 9, herein against the mutation No. 510, did not consider and appreciate the objections raised by the petitioners herein qua the maintainability of the revision petition as the respondent 5 to 9, herein have had a statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act of 1996.

Mr. Puri would further contend that the respondent 2 and 3 also did not advert to the question of limitation prescribed for filing of the revision petition filed by the respondent 5 to 9 herein against the mutation in question and instead proceeded to decide the revision petitions overlooking the judgment passed by this Court in case titled as "Rakesh Khajuria & Anr. v. State & Ors." in LPAW No. 92/2002.

7. Mr. Pawan Kumar Manni appearing counsel for the respondent 5 to 9, while resisting and controverting the contentions raised by Mr. Puri would contend that the both respondent 2 and 3 passed the orders under challenge in accordance with law. Mr. Manni would further contend that the impugned mutation challenged before respondent no. 3 was not legally sustainable for having been attested in breach and violation