ORDER :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

Facts;

1. Ownership of land measuring 04 kanals falling under Survey No.395 min in Estate Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan, District Ganderbal, passed unto the petitioner herein pursuant to the attestation of mutation No.602 dated 05.09.1986 and mutation No.605 dated 02.12.1986 respectively, attested by respondent 10 herein, under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (for short ‘the Act of 1976) and feeling aggrieved of the said mutations, private respondents 3 to 9 herein claiming to be the successors of the original owners of the said land namely Abdul Ahad Raina, Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Raina and Ghulam Mohammad Raina, preferred an appeal before Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner respondent 2 herein, on 03.01.2022, accompanied with an application for condonation of delay seeking condonation of delay in preferring the said appeal, wherein the said condonation of delay application came to be allowed on 15.12.2022 by the respondent 2, aggrieved of the which order dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner herein preferred WP(C) No.05/2023 before this Court, which WP(C) however, came to be withdrawn on 20.01.2023 owing to the disposal of the main appeal in the meantime by respondent 2 on 10.01.2023, whereafter the petitioner herein preferred WP(C) No.69/2023 challenging both the orders being order dated 15.12.2022 passed in the condonation of delay application as also the order dated 10.01.2023 passed in the main appeal and the said WP(C) 69/2023 came to be disposed of on 10.07.2023 by this Court directing the respondent 2 to consider and decide the application for condonation of delay afresh on merits by passing a speaking/reasoned order and to make an endeavor to dispose of the matter within a period of two months positively, whereafter the respondent 2 on 10.10.2023 decided the condonation of delay application and allowed the same, aggrieved whereof the petitioner herein preferred WP(C) No.2811/2023 before this Court, which petition however, came to be dismissed on 03.11.2023, upholding the said order dated 10.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 and aggrieved of the dismissal of the said WP(C) 2811/2023, the petitioner herein preferred LPA No. 248/2023, which LPA came to be disposed of on 23.10.2024 on the premise that since the petitioner herein (being the appellant before the LPA Bench) had challenged the order passed in the main appeal in a separate writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.1327/2024 (being present petition) and that as such, the appellant/petitioner herein shall be free to raise the question with regard to the legality of the order of condonation of delay dated 10.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 while providing further that the order of dismissal of the writ petition of the petitioner dated 03.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2811/2023 of 2023 shall not come in the way of appellant/petitioner herein in assailing the said order dated 10.10.2023 on the ground that the respondent 2 herein has erroneously condoned the delay and the petitioner herein whereafter in view of the aforesaid liberty granted by LPA Bench amended the said WP(C) No.1327/2024 incorporating therein challenge to the condonation of delay order dated 10.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 herein and consequently amended the petition being the present one.

2. The petitioner herein has challenged orders dated 10.10.2023 and 30.11.2024 being the order of condonation of delay and the order of disposal of the appeal respectively passed by respondent 2 herein in the instant petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondent 2 entertained the time barred appeal and condoned the delay without any lawful justification after a considerable period of time of 34 years and that the impugned orders are bad in law having been passed without assigning any reasons in a novel, unknown mode having directed the respondents 3 to 9 herein during the course of the proceedings of the case to file a supplementary condonation of delay application in order t