1. The order dated 8.9.2006 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner and Settlement Officer Udhampur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in respect of mutation under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in favour of the respondents has been challenged in the present petition on variety of grounds. The petitioner has filed two revision petitions. In fact one was to be filed against under Section 4 and other under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act but the petitioner has challenged both the mutations in his two revision petitions without bifurcating them for the two mutations. Any how both the petitions are being disposed of by common order. 2. As per the contents of the appeal there is a land measuring 11 kanals 10 Marlas under Khasra number 305 in village Mangyot Tehsil and District Udhampur. The land was not in possession of the owner but in possession of the respondent No: 1 and predecessor-in-interest of the other respondents. Accordingly under Section 4 of the Act the ownership of the land was vested in the State and the persons referred here-in-above declared prospective owners. This was done by attesting No: 221 on 09.01.1987. 3. After the attestation of mutation No: 221, the Tehsildar attested mutation No: 228 on 22nd July 1987 and conferred the ownerships rights of the land on the above persons. Both the mutations were challenged in two separate appeals before the Commissioner who dismissed the same by a common order dated 8.9.2006 which has been challenged before this Tribunal. It is claimed by the petitioner in the petition that out of 11 kanals 10 marlas, 5 kanals of land was in his possession prior to Kharif 1971 in which he has constructed a residential house and the remaining land is in possession of the respondent and as such mutation No: 221 has been wrongly attested for their entire 11 kanals 10 marlas of land, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he was not put to notice being an interested person, before attesting the two mutations violating the rule of natural justice. That attesting officer did not visit the spot or demarcated the land and held an enquiry. 5. 4. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he was not put to notice being an interested person, before attesting the two mutations violating the rule of natural justice. That attesting officer did not visit the spot or demarcated the land and held an enquiry. 5. According to the petitioner he came to know about the attestation of mutation only on 19.05.1988 when he apply for their copies which were furnished on 21.05.1988 and thereafter he filed two appeals challenging therein the said mutation on the ground that the provision of Sections 4 and 8 of the Act were not attracted and the land was kahcharai (grazing land) which facts was also figured in Khasra Girdawari for 1986 to 1988 as well as in the report of Patwari dated 03.09.1995 who had clearly stated that land was Gair Mumkin Jarh and thus unculturable land but the appellate court failed to return any findings in this regard. On these premises the appellate order has been sought to be set aside. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely. 7. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondents argued that petitioner has no locus standi to file an appeal or revision petition and as such the revision petition is required to be dismissed. He refuted all the allegations made in the revision petition and tried his best to support the impugned order. 8. To the contrary the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that land in question is shamlat land and the petitioner being the resident of village is an interested person and has every right to file appeal or revision and was thus required to be summoned by attesting officer at the time of attestation of mutation against the illegal order passed by the concerned Tehsildar. Re-iterated all the grounds taken up both in the appeals and revision petition he inter alia contended that as per Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1971 the land is recorded as undivided shamlat deh land being used as grazing land and as such this land is exempted from the operation of the Act. In this background he submitted that both the mutations having been attested against the provision of Act are illegal and requires to be set aside. 9. Rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. In this background he submitted that both the mutations having been attested against the provision of Act are illegal and requires to be set aside. 9. Rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Danish Bhut advocate for the respondents submitted that the entries in the revenue record are not correctly recorded because the land has been occupied by respondent No: 1 and his brother Mohd Israil, predecessor-in-interest much before Kharif 1971. 10. According to him the land belonging to owner Gagu Ram who was being paid cash rent of Rs.2/- for whole of the year by the above two brothers and as such mutation under Section 4 has been rightly attested as well as mutation under Section 8. He submitted some documents in support of his contention. 11. I have gone through the file submitted by the appellate court as well as the revenue record attached with the said file including the documents submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 12. I have also examined the report of Patwari. Though in the petition the petitioner has objected great importance to the report of Patwari but it appears from the record that Patwari had visited the spot when during pendency of the appeal said order was violated but it has been categorically mentioned in the report that the land in question is record as Kaha Charai in the said report. It is also disclosed by Patwari that on the border of the land petitioner has constructed a house who had in fact fenced the land in dispute which was up routed by the respondent. It is also mentioned in the report that the land in dispute is unculturable. 13. The copy of Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1971 which has been verified by the then circle officer under the provision of old Agrarian Reforms Act 1972, the land is described shamlat deh and reserved for grazing of the cattle. 14. This entry has not been challenged by the respondent in any forum. Similarly the nature of the land is shown as Gair Mumkin Jarh i.e. unculturable land. 15. 14. This entry has not been challenged by the respondent in any forum. Similarly the nature of the land is shown as Gair Mumkin Jarh i.e. unculturable land. 15. In the mutation No:221 the land is described as shamlat with possession of the owner but the nature of the land is again describe as Gair Mumkin Jarh with two kanals of land as Gair Mumkin Bana under the Agrarian Reforms Act, entry made in Kharif 1971 are to be presumed correct and unless rebutted otherwise. In the present case as noted the land is not only unculturable Gair Mumkin Jarh but reserved for grazing of cattle even if the land has been occupied by any villager like Gagu Ram but the site has not under gone any change. Under the Act this type of land is exempted from its operation. Shamlat deh has to be presumed in the possession of the villager. Once under law, the land does not fall within the definition of land described in the Act, the mutation attested under Sections 4 and 8 do not survive. The attesting officer and the appellate court have not paid any attention to this important question of law and have passed the order mechanically and without application of mind. 16. In order to find out the right of the petitioner to present this petition it is better to look to the Khasra Girdawari submitted by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner during arguments. In Kharif 1971 the land in question falling under No. Khasra 305 measuring 12 Kanal 15 9 Marlas is recorded as Shamlat undivided land reserved for grazing. The nature of soil is Gairmumkin Jar i.e. land not subject to cultivation. In Rabi 1978 Girdawar Circle made an entry that petitioner Chandu in illegal occupation of 2 Kanals of land has been disposed as per order date 11. 8. 1978 passed by Add. Tehsildar. Thereafter name of petitioner does not figure any where till Rabi 1977. Thus the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. But the fact remains that it has come to the knowledge of this Tribunal that Tehsildar Agrarian has attested two mutations in violation of provision of Agrarian Reforms Act which are required to be set aside by exercising the powers of revision suo moto. 17. Of course it is noticed that in Rabi 1984 Noor Hussain father of the respondent no. 17. Of course it is noticed that in Rabi 1984 Noor Hussain father of the respondent no. 1 and grand father of the other respondents brought under cultivation 9 Kanals of land by converting the soil to agriculture use. In the remaining land there is a common path and grazing area of 2 Kanals. This entry exists till 2007. On the basis of this entry made in 1984 the Tehsildar Agrarian recorded mutations u/Ss. 4 and 8 of the Ag. Ref. Act in favour of the respondents. Benefit has been given in this way to the respondents illegally because it is only the entry made in Kharif 1971 on the basis of which the benefit can be granted and not otherwise. The petitioner or any other villager has thus the right of taking action under the ordinary land laws. Similarly the respondent has right of protecting his possession if any under the same laws and not under the Ag. Ref. Act. In other words the present case is not covered under any provision of the said Act. 18. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the court below is set aside and two mutations attested by Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms are set aside. This finding will not restrict the right of respondents to claim relief before any appropriate forum. 19. Record of the court below be sent back and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.