1. This revision petition has been filed, by petitioner against the order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Reasi (with powers of Agr. Reforms Commissioner) dt. 21.5.2009, by virtue of which two appeals filed by respondent, against mutation no. 749 dt. 22.2.1982 u/s 4 of Agr. Reforms Act and mutation no. 854 dated. 18.11.1984 u/s 8 of Agr Reforms Act, pertaining to land measuring 32 kanals 05 marlas, under Khasra No. 950/390 situated at village Kanthi,have been allowed,both mutations accordingly have been set aside and matter has been remanded to Tehsildar for fresh inquiry. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, Shukar Din was cultivating the land as tiller under one Dhani Ram, the owner of the land right from Kharif 1971. That accordingly he was conferred with rights u/s 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act and mutations were attested. That petitioner herein is real brother of Shukar Din and out of great love and affection, Amru executed will deed with a regard to his proprietary land including the land under dispute. That Shukar Din died in 2007 and a mutation No. 1142 of inheritance has also been, attested in favour of petitioner. That respondent misrepresented the Court below and filed two appeals against Shuklar Din, who was already dead at the time of filing of appeals. The Court below condoned the delay of 26 years in filing appeals and after that set aside the both the mutations. That appeals against dead person were not maintainable and so order passed against dead person is nullity 3. I have heard both the counsel at length. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of revision petition. He has also produced an attested copy of Death certificate of ShukarDin issued by Registrar birth/death 5. Whereas respondent counsel argued that revision against remand order is not maintainable and no final right of any parties to litigation has been decided. 6. He has cited AIR 1961 SC 794 Case title M/S Jetha Anand and Sons v. State of U.P. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 8. Record file reveals that respondent herein, filed two appeals against mutations mentioned above, attested under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform in favour of deceased Shukar Din, act before Court below on 14.1.2009. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 8. Record file reveals that respondent herein, filed two appeals against mutations mentioned above, attested under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform in favour of deceased Shukar Din, act before Court below on 14.1.2009. Along with the appeals, applications for condonation for delay in term of section 5 of limitation Act were also filed. Court below issued notice to Shukar Din,which was returned with endorsement that, Shukar Din has died, his wife has also died and there is no son or daughter of deceased Shukar Din. This notice reveals, that some witnesses have also put their signatures. Court below accordingly, decided that matter, without asking petitioner to file application for impleading the petitioner herein as party, as mutation of inheritance was already attested on 13 4.2007 on the name of petitioner. 9. Law is well settled that any case or appeal filed against dead persons is nullity and Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order against dead person. In present case Shukar Din died on 15.1.2007, as is evident from death certificate. Respondent filed appeals on 14.1.2009, when Shukar Din was already dead. Both appeals were not maintainable. 10. There is quite difference between legal heirs and legal representative. Legal heirs means, who receives interest in estate of deceased being born of deceased or descendent of deceased. legal representative is wider term, it means a person, who in law represents the estate of deceased, who can also be other than legal heirs. 11. In present case petitioner has laid his claim by virtue of will deed executed by deceased shukar din, so he is termed as legal representative of deceased. 12. I have gone through the judgment cited by respondent. 13. There is no dispute with regard to law that, generally a revision does not lie against remand order. But any order passed by a court, against express provisions of law, amount to exercising power, which was not vested to court. In present case as discussed above, appeals against dead person and order passed against dead person is non est and nullity in eyes of law, so court below has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested to him, which makes order revisable. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, present revision is accepted and order impugned of court below is set aside. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, present revision is accepted and order impugned of court below is set aside. Matter is remanded back to court below for passing fresh order in appeals after hearing parties. Parties are directed to appear before court below on 28.6.2012. Record of court below is sent back along with this order. 15. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion