1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 6-7-2010, passed by Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Samba, by virtue of which, he has set aside mutation no. 917 dated 27-10-1982 attested u/s 7 and mutation no. 1367 dated 29-7-2000 attested u/s 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act and remanded the case back to Tehsildar Samba for fresh inquiry for grant of 20% of additional land to respondents. Petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that officer below has failed to revoke provision of Rule 52 of Agrarian Reform Act while passing the order impugned. That appeal before the court below was time barred and delay was condoned without any reasonable circumstances. That order impugned is not only beyond the jurisdiction of court below, but devoid of legal infirmities. That both the mutations were attested separately on different dates and court below clubbed both the appeals together beyond jurisdiction and in volition of order 23-A. That resumption was applied by some of the respondents, whereas court below has entered other respondents without any power. The resumption of land cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 2. Heard perused the record of court below. 3. It appears that respondents herein filed two appeals before court below, one appeal against the order dated 10-7-1987 passed on mutation no. 917 u/s 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act and another appeal against order dated 29-7-2000 passed in mutation no. 1367 u/s 8 of Act with regard to land measuring 9K-1M under khasra no. 186, and 14K-19M under Khasra 613/183/184 and 185 situated at Rakh Amb Tehsil Samba. Both appeals were accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. In first appeal it was stated that order was passed without hearing them and mutating officer did not bother to summon appellants under rule 36 of standing order 23-A .That appellants were entitled for resumption of 20% of more land. That mutating officer did not check mutation, as total land measuring 48Kanals for which respondent therein were prospective owners, which had to be resumed by them according to rate of rent paid to appellants. That appellants were in defense forces, so order was bad. In other appeal, it was stated that, appellants were in defense forces, as admitted in mutation no. 917 u/s 7 of the Act by Tehsildar and as such appellants were entitled to 20% of more land. That appellants were in defense forces, so order was bad. In other appeal, it was stated that, appellants were in defense forces, as admitted in mutation no. 917 u/s 7 of the Act by Tehsildar and as such appellants were entitled to 20% of more land. That total land was 48kanals and respondents therein were prospective owner of land. As per section 4 of Act, land have to be apportioned between the parties in equal share and as the appellants were in defense, they were entitled to resume 20 % of more land, so that appellants could reach to their land which has already resumed to them. The court below after hearing the parties by way of common order, allowed the appeals and set aside the both the mutations after condoning the delay in filing appeal and remanded the case back to Tehsildar and Tehsildar was directed to conduct enquiry with regard to 20% of more land. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter and law concerning the matter. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds taken in the petition. Whereas respondents have supported the impugned order. 5. Any mutation attested in absence of a party entitled to land defined under agrarian reform act 1976, that mutation is held to be nonest and nullity in eye of law .The appeal thus filed against the order of nonest and void mutation is not considered to be time barred, if sufficient cause is shown. Section 5 of Limitation Act is enabling provision for entertaining the appeal against the order of mutation passed in ex-party or in absence of a party, because limitation act is applicable to proceeding of appeal in term of section 22(2) of agrarian reform act. The fact that mutation has been attested in absence of party, amounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, in term of section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. In present case, court below has condoned delay in filing appeals, on the ground that mutations were attested in absence of appellants, so order of court below in condoning the delay in filing appeals, does not suffers from any legal infirmity. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that court below has not fallowed Rule 52 of Agrarian Reforms Rule 1977, while passing of order impugned. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that court below has not fallowed Rule 52 of Agrarian Reforms Rule 1977, while passing of order impugned. Rule 52 reads as under:- Rule 52 Case, where appeal fails on ground of limitation. Where the appeals is dismissed on the ground of limitation, the appellate authority shall, if he be of the opinion that the order appealed from is one which should be revised, submit the case through proper channel to the Revisional authority with a report why the order appealed from needs being revised and what the revised order should be. On receipt of this report, the Revisional authority shall act as if an application for revision under the Act had bee made to him. 7. Bare perusal of this Rule, it is evident that it is not applicable in present set of circumstances, because texture of this rule feature that, this is applicable only when appellate authority dismisses the appeal as time barred. In present case it is not so, as both the appeals have been accepted by the court below. So arguments of counsel for petitioner does not hold good. 8. Further, section 7 (f) (III) and Rule 18(b) are relevant for considering the matter in hand. These reads as under:- Section 7 -- Resumption for bonafide personal cultivation by ex-landlord. f (iii) a person serving in defense force on or after the 1st day of April, 1965 ( an ex-service man of the defence force) or a widow or an orphan who is minor or a lunatic or an imbecile, or an insane person who is crippled or incapacitated by old age or infirmity, shall be permitted to resume land twenty percentum in excess of the land otherwise resumable under sub-clauses(i) or (iii) Rule 18 -- Identification of land that may be resumed. (b) The selection of land for resumption shall be made in such a manner that the rights of easement in relation to the cultivation of land are not interfered with. 9. A conjoint reading of both provisions stated above, it is evident that person serving in defense forces shall be permitted to resume 20% in excess of land otherwise risumi able to him and selection of land shall be made in such a manner that right of easement in relation to cultivation of land doesn't interfere. 10. 9. A conjoint reading of both provisions stated above, it is evident that person serving in defense forces shall be permitted to resume 20% in excess of land otherwise risumi able to him and selection of land shall be made in such a manner that right of easement in relation to cultivation of land doesn't interfere. 10. In present case, it has not been denied by the petitioner herein, that respondents here in were in defense forces and are ex-servicemen. Further in appeals it has specifically prayed by appellants / respondents herein, that their path leading to their land be also provided. So I am of the considered opinion that remand order of court below thereby directing the Tehsildar to conduct fresh enquiry with regard to 20% of excess land as easementary right with regard to land resumed to contesting respondents herein doesn't suffers from any legal infirmity. 11. This tribunal constituted under special tribunal act, derives power of revision under section 21 of agrarian reform act 1976. It reads as under:- (2) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates. (3) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard. Bare perusal of this section, it is clear that revision jurisdiction of Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine a matter involving question of law or of public importance, after a final order is passed by appellate authority. Order arrived after appreciating facts emerging during the course of proceeding before court below cannot be re-appreciated, unless order is perverse in nature. 12. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. Order arrived after appreciating facts emerging during the course of proceeding before court below cannot be re-appreciated, unless order is perverse in nature. 12. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention. In present case Petitioner counsel has failed to point out any question of law or of public importance. 13. Even otherwise remand order of court below is not revisable, because court below has not decided any right of the parties. Any party aggrieved of order of remand court has remedy to approach higher forum under law. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is not maintainable and thus dismissed. File of court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record after due compilation.