ORDER :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner has challenged order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Regional Director Survey and Land Records, Udhampur [(Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), for short, ‘learned Commissioner’], whereby appeal against mutation No. 1279 dated 29.09.1986 pertaining to land measuring 13 kanals and 14 marlas in Khasra No. 1070, land measuring 09 kanals and 15 marlas in Khasra No. 1523/1074, land measuring 08 marlas in Khasra No. 1525/1075, land measuring 07 kanals and 12 marlas in Khasra No. 1527/1077, land measuring 02 kanals and 13 marlas in Khasra No. 1522/1077 and land measuring 01 kanal in Khasra No. 1030/1079 situated at village Kud, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur, has been dismissed.

02. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case.

03. It appears that mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 came to be attested in respect of the aforesaid land vide mutation order No. 1279 dated 29.09.1986 in favour of the respondent No. 3-Isher Dass S/o Sayan Chand. The said mutation order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal filed before the court of learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur which was instituted on 05.09.2020. The petitioner also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

04. Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

05. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner on the grounds that mutation order dated 29.09.1986 came to be attested at his back and he was not given any opportunity of hearing at the time of passing of the said mutation order. It has been submitted that limitation would start to run against the petitioner from the date of knowledge of the said order and because the petitioner was not having knowledge about the attestation of the mutation in favour of respondent No. 3, as such, the appeal filed by him was not barred by limitation. It has also been contended that the learned Commissioner while declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal has failed to appreciate that valuable rights of the parties are going to be affected and that a liberal view was required to be taken in the matter while considering the issue of condonation of delay. It has been further contended that the petitioner has a strong case on merits, therefore, on this ground alone, the learned Commissioner should have exercised the discretion of condoning the delay in his favour.

06. It is clear from the mutation order No. 1279, which is subject matter of the present writ petition that the same has been attested in favour of respondent No. 3 on 29.09.1986. The challenge to this mutation order has been laid by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Commissioner on 05.09.2020 which more than 33 years after the passing of mutation order.

07. As per Section 22 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, the period of limitation that has been prescribed for filing an appeal is 60 days from the date of order appealed from. In terms of Sub-Section (2) of the Section 22 of the said Act, the provisions of Limitation Act have been made applicable to the appeals under the said Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act which provides condonation of delay in filing applications/appeals etc., is applicable to the appeals under the Agrarian Reforms Act.

08. In the present case, the learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. In the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, a copy whereof has been placed on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition, it was pleaded by him that he is in continuous and uninterrupted exclusive cultivating possession of the land in question and that a false mutation order has been manipulated by the respondent No. 3.

09. It was fur