Rahul Bharti, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the record of the quasi judicial authority below i.e., Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban.
2. Mutation No. 2399 dated 29.04.2001 under Section 4 and mutation no. 2466 dated 05.10.2001 under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (in short, ‘Act of 1976’) came to be attested by the Tehsildar, Gool district Ramban in terms whereof the land comprised in khasra no. 248 min measuring 2 kanals situated in village Gool, tehsil Gool, district Ramban came to be escheated and vested in ownership in favour of the respondents no. 4 to 7.
3. Against the aforesaid two mutations of 2001, the petitioner herein came forward with a challenge in an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban on file no. 17/ADCR/Agr instituted on 01.10.2021.
4. Since the period of limitation prescribed for filing of an appeal against an order of official under Section 22 of the Act of 1976 is sixty days from the date of order appealed from as such the appeal sought to be maintained by the petitioner against the aforesaid two mutations being time barred was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.
5. The petitioner was not able to convince the appellate authority of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban with respect to the quantum of delay having intervened as such, the appellate authority of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban who by virtue of an order dated 29.09.2022 declined condonation of delay stating that the application does not explain/justify the sufficient cause of not preferring the appeal within the statutory time period and thus, confirmed the attestation of aforesaid two mutations.
6. It is against this aforesaid adjudication in terms of order dated 29.09.2022 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban that the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of certiorari for quashment of the adjudication so made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban.
7. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that with effect from coming into being of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-Organization Act, 2019, the remedy of revision provided under Section 21(2) of the Act of 1976 against a final order of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms has been omitted leaving no remedy at the disposal of an aggrieved person against an order passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms under the Act of 1976 as such, the judicial review is the only remedy left available to the aggrieved person to invoke which the petitioner in the present case is resorting to and that is available for examining the legality and validity of the order impugned.
8. From the perusal of the memo of appeal read with condonation of delay application, the sole plea being put up by the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay of twenty years in running was that the two mutations were attested ex parte against the petitioner and as such he was having no knowledge about the said development having taken place at his back.
9. The petitioner has pleaded in the memo of appeal that the revenue record of khasra no. 248 min pertaining to the year 1971 reflects one Kh. Abdul Samad as co-sharer of khasra no. 248 min to the extent of one half share along with other share being held in ownership by Abdul Gani and Abdul Rashid. Abdul Samad is said to be the father of the petitioner having demised in the mid 1960’s. In the memo of appeal, it is not mentioned that whether the petitioner ever succeeded in estate to that of his father Abdul Samad and if so, vide which mutation for bringing him into picture in the revenue record whereas the 1971 khasra girdawari continued to obtain in the name of Abdul Samad.
10. Thus, even the petitioner had kept the revenue authorities uninformed about the fact of his father having demised and requirement of brining on record his name as successor-in-interest. For long period of 21 years, the petitioner expected the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban to believe that at no point of time the petitioner ever came across with an occasion to confirm the revenue record pertaining to his alleged proprietary interest qua the land comprised in khasra no. 248 min.
11. The mutations above referred came to deal not only with the share of the Abdul Samad but also that of the other share holders who at no point of time ever objected to the legality of mutations so passed and attested against their own proprietary interest qua the same very land meaning thereby the co-sharers/owners of Abdul Samad-the petitioner’s father, were fully cognizant of the fact that by virtue of the aforesaid two mutations the proprietorship of the body of the share holders qua khasra no. 248 has come to suffer extinction and vesting in favour of the respondents no. 4 to 7.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 52 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977 (in short, ‘Rules of 1977’) places an onus on an appellate authority to examine a case on merits even if an appeal against an order under challenge is time barred but the order in question deserves the revision and, accordingly, submit the case to the revisional authority.
13. In support of his submission drawing from the aforesaid rule, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Haseena (Mst) and ors. vs. State of J&K & ors’ reported in 2015 (4) JKJ 270.
14. Said Rule 52 of the Rules of 1977 even if interpreted to be in the sense in which the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking to interpret and apply it by reference to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court (supra) still in the present scenario the said Rule 52 of the Rules of 1977 has become otiose given the fact that the revisional remedy under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1976 has been done away with by amendment of the Act of 1976, thus, leaving or vesting no scope or discretion with an appellate authority to submit a case for revision qua the order under a time barred appeal even if the said order is ex facie sounding to be an illegal order as such, the reliance placed by Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the exploit of Rule 52 of the Rules of 1977 read with the Division Bench judgment of this Court (supra) may not serve the purpose in the present case.
15. Accordingly, this Court finds no factual basis to upset the appreciation of the appellate authority of Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Ramban in not coming forward with condonation of delay of twenty years on the part of the petitioner in assailing the two impugned mutations at any point of time more particularly with the co-owners qua the same very khasra number and equally effected by the very said two mutations, also not bothering to question the same.
16. Thus, there is no merit in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s).
