JUDGMENT H. S. Dabey, I. A. S. (F. C).- This is a reference made by the learned Settlement Collector, Kangra through the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 29 1-1972, under section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) recommending that the order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, dated 17-3-1963 in respect of mutation No. 89 of village Dhaboi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi be set aside and the case remanded to the Revenue Officer directing him that the mutation be attested in equal shares in the names of Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju nephews of Smt. Sabhu deceased. Besides, the learned Collector has also recommended two other similar revision petitions in respect of mutation Nos. 227 and 131 pertaining to villages Trandol and Manolta respectively in which the facts of the case and the parties are the same. Hence, this order will dispose of all the three petitions. 2. The brief facts of these cases are that Smt. Sabhu, widow of one Shri Sairu died issueless on 26-1-1968. On her death, she had two nephews viz. Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju. Subsequent to her death but before the attestation of impugned mutations, Shri Briju also died on 11-1 1968. Her landed property situated in three different revenue estates viz. Dhaboi, Trandol and Manolta mutated by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in the name of one of the present respondent, Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh on 17-3-1968 and 12-4-1968 in the absence of the petitioners Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, Smt. Bohtu widow and Smt. Sarswati daughter of Shri Briju filed three separate revision petitions before the Settlement Collector, Mandi alleging that Shri Briju who was the real brother of Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh was alive on the date of death of Smt. Sabhu and as such the mutations in respect of all the three villages ought to have been sanctioned in equal shares in the name of Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju who were the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Collector after hearing the parties has recommended the case to this Court for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the records of these cases. 4. The learned Collector after hearing the parties has recommended the case to this Court for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the records of these cases. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to be present at the time of attestation of the mutations ; that the Revenue Officer attested the mutation in utter disregard of the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inspite of the fact that the pedigree table was duly drawn by the Patwari on the mutation sheets showing the heirs of the deceased ; and that no enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Officer regarding heirs of the deceased. For these shortcomings, he contended that material irregularity had been committed by him in deciding the mutations in their absence. As for the delay in filing the revision petitions, it was argued that the petitioners having not been summoned at the time of attestation of the mutations and they coming to know about it only in 1970, the delay was pardonable under the unfettered powers of the Financial Commissioner under the Act especially when a grave injustice had been caused due to the ilk gal order of the Revenue Officer divesting them of their valuable right in the property. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on section 16 of the Act. Besides, he cited the cases of Dr. Ram Singh and another v. Kasturi Ram and others, LLT 1957 p. 20 and Dasaundhi and another y. Mussammat Giano, LLT 1958 p. 21 in support of his case. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the facts of the case but vehemently asserted that the petitions were barred by time. He further contended that Shri Briju was not alive at the time of attestation of the impugned mutations The only surviving heir of Smt. Sabhu was Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh in whose favour the mutations were rightly attested by the Revenue Officer and that no enquiry was necessary as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further contended that Shri Briju was not alive at the time of attestation of the impugned mutations The only surviving heir of Smt. Sabhu was Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh in whose favour the mutations were rightly attested by the Revenue Officer and that no enquiry was necessary as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He assailed the order of the learned Settlement Collector saying that he had erred in placing reliance upon the Parivar register which was not admissible in evidence regarding the death of Shri Briju and Smt. Sabhu. Lastly, he argued that the revision petitions were not competent when the petitioners had open to them another remedy of appeals against the orders of the Revenue Officer. In support of his case, the learned counsel cited Sajjad Hussain Khan v. Zargham Hussain and another, LLT 1931 p. 37 ; Chander Parkash v. Lakhshmi Narain, LLF 1932 p-15 ; Gurmukh v. Nidhan Singh and others, LLT 1957 p. 4. In the matter of the mutation of Mamdot Estate, LLT 1932 p. 39 ; Smt. Parmeshri v. Ram Dass and another, I LT, 1932 p. 6b and Mst. Alam Khatun and others v. Mehr Wali Modh and others, LLT 1941 p. 130. 7. Before I proceed to examine the merits or me case, it is pertinent to take up the objection regarding limitation first. 8. It has been held in Dr. Ram Singh and another, LLT 1957 p. 20 "that the Financial Commissioners powers of revision under the Land Revenue Act have been purposely kept sufficiently wide and it will be clearly against the apparent intention of the Legislature to try to meticulously apply the provisions of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, in such cases or to attempt to lay down any hard and fast rules which could be considered good enough for application in the circumstances of every conceivable case. It will also be against the general principle of law and procedure to entertain in the guise of revision, almost all cases where no appeal lies." Besides, some guidelines have been laid for exercising the revisional powers by the Financial Commissioner which inter alia stipulates that in mutation cases, revisional powers can be exercised where another remedy is open". It will also be against the general principle of law and procedure to entertain in the guise of revision, almost all cases where no appeal lies." Besides, some guidelines have been laid for exercising the revisional powers by the Financial Commissioner which inter alia stipulates that in mutation cases, revisional powers can be exercised where another remedy is open". In Dasaundhi and another v. Mussammat Giano, LLT 1958 p. 21, it has been laid down that according to the Punjab Land Revenue Act, no exact period of limitation is fixed for the exercise of revisional powers by the Financial Commissioner. In special circumstances, the Financial Commissioner can hear cases in revision after pretty long delay. 9. It has been held in Sajjad Hussain Khan v. Zarghem Hussain and another, LLT 1931 p. 37 that "where a revision is filed more than 90 days after the lower Courts order, it may be dismissed in limine though it is open to the Financial Commissioner to admit the petition presented after such delay." In Chandar Parkash v. Lakhshmi Narain, LLT 1932 p-15, it has inter alia been held that Though no period of limitation is prescribed for a revision, the Financial Commissioner will refuse to interfere when it is made after the period assigned for an appeal, unless for reasons which would justify extending the period of limitation." In Gurmukh v. Nidhan Singh and others9 LLT 1957 p-4, it has been held "that mutation proceedings convey no right to any party and anyone, who is not satisfied with an order passed by the revenue authorities in such proceedings, can have recourse to a Civil Court." 10. The detailed study of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents reveals that the Financial Commissioner has powers to entertain a revision petition even after the period of 90 days. 11. In the present case, the learned Collector before whom the revision was filed came to the conclusion that notwithstanding the delay in filing the same, the mere ground of limitation should not stand in the way of correcting a prima facie wrong, particularly when section 16 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation for revision petitions. 12. 11. In the present case, the learned Collector before whom the revision was filed came to the conclusion that notwithstanding the delay in filing the same, the mere ground of limitation should not stand in the way of correcting a prima facie wrong, particularly when section 16 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation for revision petitions. 12. While I concede the point that extreme care should be exercised in re-opening the cases in revision petitions which are disposed of a long time back and when the remedy of appeal is available, I strongly feel that any material irregularity resulting in failure of justice should be corrected as and when it comes to the notice of the Financial Commissioner. Mere efflux of time cannot be allowed to have the effect of mitigating the basic infirmity in the proceedings before the Revenue Officer. 13. In this case, the delay in filing the revisions has obviously been caused due to the fact that the petitioners being, ladies, residing in the interior had to get legal advice for agitating the matter which was bound to take time. In view of the above, I admit this petition. 14. Now coming to the merits of the case, I find weight in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue Officer has committed a material irregularity in attesting the impugned mutations in the absence of the petitioners and particularly so when he did not hold any summary enquiry about the heirs of the deceased though the "Shajra Nasab" was before him while he took up the mutations for decision. 15. The main point for consideration in this case concerns the right of the interested parties to be given an opportunity of being present at the time of attestation of mutation. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents repudiated the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for holding any enquiry and cited the matter of mutation of Mamdot Estate, LLT 1932 p. 39 in which it has inter alia been held that the scope of the enquiry must be left to the discretion of the Mutation Officer but it must necessarily be summary. In Mst. Alam Khatun and others v. Mehr Wall Mohd. In Mst. Alam Khatun and others v. Mehr Wall Mohd. and others, LLT 1941 p. 13 it has inter alia been held that Revenue Officers in mutation proceedings have a responsibility to ensure that as far as possible the revenue records are correctly maintained, and especially in the case of colony tenancies governed by Statements of Conditions and executive orders of Government. This citation is not relevant to the facts of the present case. 17. The procedure to be followed in mutation proceedings is laid down in Land Records Manual, Chapter VII. In para 7.4 of the Manual, it is clearly laid down that the Revenue Officer before attesting any mutation should show whether the parties intrested were all present or if any one was not present, the way in which his evidence was obtained or if it was not obtained, what opportunity was given to him to be present. In this case the Revenue Officer attested the impugend mutations in the absence of the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry regarding the legal heirs of the deceased. This enquiry was all the mere necessary in view of the name of Shri Bnju and his widow and daughter having been mentioned in the Shajra Nasab." Since the Revenue Officer did not go into the matter regard ing the legal heirs, he cannot be said to have conducted the proceedings in a legally correct manner. 18. Keeping in view what has been stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the mutation proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the law. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, dated 13-3-1968 and 12-4-1968 passed on mutation number 89, 227 and 131 in respect of villages Dhaboi, Trondol and Manolta and remand the case to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sarkaghat for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to all the interested parties to be present at the time of disposal of the mutations. 19. A copy of this order be also placed on case file No. 86/76 and 88/76. 20. Orders to be communicated. Case remanded