1. The present case is an example of perversity of order passed from time to time by the concerned Revenue Officer, by mis-interpretation and mis-application of relevant provisions of law. 2. The facts of the case as unfolded from the record are as under:- Land falling under number Khasra 130 measuring 29 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Narwal Bala Jammu was owned by Krishan Dutt and Ors. The land was being cultivated by Phama Gujjar as occupancy tenant prior to Kharif 1971 and even in Kharif 1971. The entries in this regard have been made in the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi. Petitioner, Bashir Ahmed Butto and Ahmed Din are sons of Phama Gujjar. Respondent Ahmed Din is residing in village Narwal Balla Jammu whereas his other two brothers are residing in Gujjar Nagar Jammu. 3. After coming into force of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (hereinafter the `Act') mutation No:320 under Section 4 of the Act dated 29.10.1979 was attested by Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu and on 30.10.1979 mutation No:322 under Section 8 of the Act was attested by the same Revenue Officer, by declaring Phama Gujjar as absolute owner of the land in question. 4. On 15.1.1998 Tehsildar(Settlement) Jammu attested again mutation No:1266 under Section 121 of Land Revenue Act and declared Ahmed Din s/o Phama Gujjar as absolute owner of the land in question. By that time Phama had died. 5. On 11.3.1998 said mutation was challenged by Bashir Ahmed and Choudhary Bhutto before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu. Similarly before the said Commissioner, Ahmed Din respondent No:3 on 21.5.1998 also filed an appeal against mutation No:320 and 322 attested in favour of his father under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. On 21.2.2000, both the appeals were disposed of by setting aside the mutations in question and cases were remanded back to Tehsildar(Settlement) Jammu for inquiry on spot in presence of the parties and to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 6. The Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu made an inquiry on 30.9.2001 at camp Narwal, in presence of respondent Ahmed Din and petitioner Choudhary Bhutto. Bashir Ahmed respondent No:4 was not present there. 6. The Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu made an inquiry on 30.9.2001 at camp Narwal, in presence of respondent Ahmed Din and petitioner Choudhary Bhutto. Bashir Ahmed respondent No:4 was not present there. After holding the inquiry the Tehsildar attested mutation under Section 4 by giving the earlier No:320 to the same and declared Ahmed Din respondent as prospective owner on the ground that he was cultivating the land. Thereafter the said Tehsildar attested mutation under Section 8 by giving the previous number 322 and conferred the ownership rights on respondent Ahmed Din on the very same day. The Tehsildar made no inquiry in respect of mutation attested under Section 121 of Land Revenue Act. 7. Aggrieved by the attestation of mutations in favour of respondent Ahmed Din, his other two brothers preferred two appeals before Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms(with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu on 20.12.2003. Both the appeals were disposed of by the common order on 29.7.2006 after upholding the mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act in favour of Ahmed Din respondent. According to Commissioner, Ahmed Din respondent was cultivating the land in question and his two other brothers were residing in Gujjar Nagar Jammu for last 40 years so they constituted a separate unit of family and were also not in cultivating possession of the land. Against the judgment of Commissioner the present two revision petitions have been filed for setting aside the same. 8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 9. For the sake of brevity the Commissioner who remanded the case after setting aside the mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act attested in favour of Phama Gujjar will be referred to 1st Commissioner and the Commissioner who has upheld the orders passed on mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act, attested in favour of respondent Ahmed Din, as 2ND Commissioner. 10. Admittedly Phama Gujjar was occupancy tenant of the land in question in Kharif 1971, as such rightly the mutation under Sections 4 and 8 were attested in his favour to which he was legally entitled as per the provision of the Act. After setting aside the same, when the case was taken for fresh inquiry by Tehsildar, he attested mutation under Section 4 and 8 and made respondent Ahmed Din as absolute owner. After setting aside the same, when the case was taken for fresh inquiry by Tehsildar, he attested mutation under Section 4 and 8 and made respondent Ahmed Din as absolute owner. Although in mutation under Section 4 there is reference to statement made by Choudhary Bhutto but as per record same has been recorded on separate paper, making the same as doubtful. In this regard petitioner has also expressed his doubt. 11. However, after obtaining the signature of Choudhary Bhutto on the margin of the order, Tehsildar recorded a note that statement of petitioner Choudhary Bhotto and respondent Ahmed Din and the persons present during attestation of mutation have been recorded separately for want of space on the mutation itself. This may justify such action. During his statement recorded on 30.9.2001 petitioner Choudhary Bhotto disclosed that his father was cultivating the land as tenant prior to Kharif 1971 and thereafter, so mutation under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act were attested in his favour which were set aside on filing an appeal by his brother Ahmed Din. He further stated that he along with his brother Bashir Ahmed have migrated from village where the land is situated and his brother Bashir Ahmed had never cultivated the land. He demanded his share from the land in question. But to the contrary Tehsildar(Settlement) in mutation No:4 has twisted statement of petitioner. What was the Tehsildar himself writing was not aware to him. However he has reiterated the statement made before him by respondent Ahmed Din for passing order in his favour. As per the statement of Ahmed Din his father Phama was recorded as tenant in Kharif 1971 but in fact he himself was cultivating the land on the basis of which mutation No:1266 under Section 121 of the land Revenue Act was attested in his favour. He requested for restoration of the said mutation. Instead of giving any finding in this regard and contrary to the request of respondent Ahmed Din for restoration of mutation under Section 121, Tehsildar attested mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act in his favour, without giving any finding as to how he was attesting mutation in favour of a son, whose father was alive and cultivating land as tenant in Kharif 1971. 12. 12. But to contrary the Tehsildar (Settlement) by making a reference to the statement of petitioner Choudhary Bhutto and respondent Ahmed Din held in correctly that it was Ahmed Din who was cultivating land as `head' of family, which had never been cultivated by his two brothers who had left left village and settled in Gujjar Nagar Jammu since pretty long time. 13. Without passing any order for correction of Girdawari the Tehsildar attested the mutation and declared respondent Ahmed Din as prospective owner under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter attested mutation under Section 8 of the Act. 14. It is pertinent to note here that as per the report of Patwari part sarkar of mutation under Section 4 was not traceable and as such fresh mutation under Section 4 was passed by Tehsildar (Settlement) on Parat Patwar, which makes the attestation of mutation doubtful. The Tehsildar did not make any inquiry as to why Parat Sarkar was not traceable and simply relied upon the report of Patwari without confirming the same. 15. While upholding the order of Tehsildar (Settlement), the appellate court held that it was Phama who was cultivating the land in Kharif 1971 but during the attestation of mutation No:1266 Phama had made an admission that the land was being cultivated by his son Ahmed Din because he was weak and old person unable to cultivate the land. The appellate court also observed that the cultivation of Ahmed Din has not been contradicted by the appellants before him i.e. other two brothers of Ahmed Din. 16. The Tehsildar as well as Appellate Court appears to be oblivious of the provision of law governing the case in question. Had they taken pain to go through the Act they would have not passed the orders which have been assailed by the petitioner. Both Tehsildar and Appellate Court have admitted that Phama was tenant in Kharif 1971. This fact is even otherwise born out from the copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. Even presuming that his son Ahmed Din was exclusively in possession of land, how can he be made absolute owner under the Act, is the question to be decided by this Tribunal. 17. As per Section 2(12) of the Act personal cultivation by a person shall mean cultivation by his son. Even presuming that his son Ahmed Din was exclusively in possession of land, how can he be made absolute owner under the Act, is the question to be decided by this Tribunal. 17. As per Section 2(12) of the Act personal cultivation by a person shall mean cultivation by his son. So by virtue of this Section land has to be deemed in personal cultivation of Phama, even if his son Ahmed Din was cultivating land. In the life time of Phama his sons including Ahmed Din could never have acquired the status of tenants. The admission, even made by Phama in mutation under Section 121 Land Revenue Act (since set aside) that his son Ahmed Din was cultivating land will not be sufficient for Ahmed Din in acquiring the status of a tenant. The court below without keeping this position of law come to hold that Ahmed Din could be made absolute owner under the Act as on account of illness of his father Phama, he was in possession of land in Kharif 1971, which obviously is wrong statement of law. 18. However, Learned counsel for respondent Ahmed Din argued that petitioners were residing in Gujjar Nagar for the last 40 years so their brother Ahmed Din residing in village where the land is situated , will be deemed to constitute a separate family. He also submitted that Phama was not cultivating the land with his hands and as such his son Ahmed Din was cultivating the land with his hand and can be termed as tiller of the land in Kharif 1971. I am afraid to concur with the contention of the Learned counsel for the respondent Ahmed Din. Possession under law can be physical and constructive also. The constructive possession is as good as physical possession in the eyes of law. If the contention of Mr. Kundal is accepted lot of people will suffer who on account to their profession and service remain away from their homes. The land in their absence may be cultivated by their sons, brother and other family members or even by co-owners. If such relatives and co-owners are declared to be tiller of land for the benefit accruing under Section 8 of the Act and made absolute owner then whole system of law will collapse. 19. The land in their absence may be cultivated by their sons, brother and other family members or even by co-owners. If such relatives and co-owners are declared to be tiller of land for the benefit accruing under Section 8 of the Act and made absolute owner then whole system of law will collapse. 19. Various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of the Country have held that possession of one co-sharer /co-owner is the possession of other co-sharer/co-owner. To avoid any confusion further in this regard while legislating the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, it has been specifically provided that the possession of son will be deemed to the possession of his father. 20. Even admitted for argument sake that Ahmed Din was tilling the land in question in kharif 1971, he cannot be made owner of the same under Section 8 of the Act because he was not a tenant directly under the owner of the land nor it is his case that he was paying rent in kind or cash directly to the ex-owner of the land. This is another disqualification for respondent Ahmed Din for reaping the benefit flowing from Sections 4 and 8 of the Act. 21. In order to make position clear for the applicability of Sections 4 and 8 of the Act, it has been provided under Section 2(17) of the Act that a tiller means a tenant cultivating the land personally. Thus no person other than the tenant can be conferred with the ownership right under Section 8 of the Act. It appears that there is general confusion with the Revenue Authorities about the definition of tiller as defined in the Act. They appear reading the definition of "tiller" in two parts. So far the Ist part is concerned it is unambiguous, that tiller means a tenant. The 2nd part provides that tiller shall mean and include the person who was tiller in Kharif 1971. Here this word "the tiller" is treated a person not a tenant but as a person simplister in possession of the land generally by revenue officers.. The rule of interpretation of statue provides that words used in particular section shall be interpreted in such a way as to achieve the object of particular section. Here this word "the tiller" is treated a person not a tenant but as a person simplister in possession of the land generally by revenue officers.. The rule of interpretation of statue provides that words used in particular section shall be interpreted in such a way as to achieve the object of particular section. When a word occurs twice in a particular section, the meaning to the same shall be assigned for the main object to be achieved by that section. The purpose of bringing on statute the law of Agrarian Reforms Act was to do away with absentee land Lordism and to confer rights of ownership to the tenants cultivating the land. By no stretch of imagination definition of tiller in the Act can be stretched to include a person not cultivating the land in Kharif 1971, as tenant. If this course is not followed, it will lead to perpetuity of un-necessary litigation and depriving a person of the right available to a tenant under the Act. 22. In this case not only the Tehsildar (Settlement) has thrown to winds the definition of personal cultivation and tiller but the appellate authority, being a more experienced has not bothered to go through the Act and has upheld the illegal order of his subordinate officer in a mechanical manner without discussing the points raised before him by the Learned counsel for the appellants. His knowledge of relevant law appears to be poor and that is why he has passed such a cryptic order by taking into consideration the individual possession of respondent Ahmed Din in Kharif 1971, when his father as tenant was alive. The appellate court ought to have set aside the orders of Tehsildar (Settlement) by taking into consideration the relevant provision of law. He has also given the perverse finding that petitioner and his brother Bashir Ahmed were residing in Gujjar Nagar for last 40 years so they cannot be held to be in a possession of land in question, forgetting that as per Section 2(12) of the Act, the petitioner and respondent No:4 could even have been legally deemed to be in possession of land through their brother respondent Ahmed Din. I also do not understand as to what was the necessity of holding that petitioners were residing in Gujjar Nagar. I also do not understand as to what was the necessity of holding that petitioners were residing in Gujjar Nagar. How does their absence from the village deprive them of any legal right which they have in respect of their land is not understandable. Does it mean that a person will be deprived of his right of inheritance or succession because he is not residing in his village. This question of law has not been dwelled upon by the appellate court. The order of the Tehsildar passed under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act including that of order of the appellate court is contrary to the provision of the Act and as such not sustainable. In fact the mutation under Sections 4 and 8 were rightly attested in 1979 in favour of Phama Gujjar. He was to be treated as absolute owner for all purposes, as per the provision of Section 8 of the Act and after his death the petitioner and respondents Ahmed Din and Bashir Ahmed were to inherit property as per their personal land. 23. It appears that Revenue Officers involved in this case have tried to give undue benefit to respondent Ahmed Din in violation of the provision of Agrarian Reforms Act as well as the Land Revenue Act. How the Tehsildar Settlement attested mutation on 30.9.2001 in favour of Ahmed Din as absolute owner of the land under the Act when he had requested for restoration of mutation N o:1266 attested under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act is not understandable. On one hand the Tehsildar( Settlement) makes the respondent Ahmed Din as absolute owner under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act and at the same time his successor makes the said respondent as owner under the Agrarian Reforms Act It amounts to double conferment of ownership rights in favour of respondent Ahmed Din. What was the object for the Revenue Officer in adopting this course is a matter for concern. The mutations were also attested under the Act by Tehsildar in favour of respondent Ahmed Din without summoning the petitioner Bashir Ahmed thereby violating Rule 14 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules. The mutations were to be attested in or near the village where the land is situated but in the present case this procedure has not been adopted. The mutations were also attested under the Act by Tehsildar in favour of respondent Ahmed Din without summoning the petitioner Bashir Ahmed thereby violating Rule 14 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules. The mutations were to be attested in or near the village where the land is situated but in the present case this procedure has not been adopted. Under Rule 14(2) of the above Rules, the interested parties have to be summoned before attesting any mutation. In the present case there is no record indicating that effective steps were taken to summon petitioner Bashir Ahmed. This Rule has also slipped from the notice of the appellate court. In fact the appellate courts have not only to hear the appeal against the orders of subordinate officer but to act as guides for such officers, by writing lucid judgement after taking into consideration the facts and relevant provision of law. 24. Accordingly the revision petitions are allowed and the mutation under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act declaring respondent Ahmed Din as absolute owner of the land in question are set aside including the judgement of the appellate court. The case is remanded to Tehsildar for attesting mutation under Sections 4 and 8 Ist in favour of the Phama Gujjar and then mutation of inheritance in favour of petitioner and respondent Ahmed Din and Bashir Ahmed as per Rule 12(2) (b) (iii) of Agrarian Reforms Rules. 25. Record of the court below be sent back alongwith copy of this judgement. 26. File be consigned to record after due compilation.