1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu dt. 20.11.2005, by virtue of which two appeals filed petitioner with regard to mutation no. 208 dt. 12.6.91 attested u/s 4 of Agrarian Ref Act and mutation No. 219 dt. 30.4.92 attested u/s 8 of Agr Ref Act, with respect to land measuring 12 marla under Kh.no. 112 min and 142 min,, situated at sukhter Tehsil Jammu, have been dismissed. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, land is Banjer kadim and is uncultivable, so mutation under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act cannot be attested. That petitioner is running the shop in said land and has also constructed bath room and boundary wall. That Court below did not consider girdawri entry and dismissed the appeals as time barred. Brief facts emerging from the Court records are that, two mutations u/s 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reform Act with regard to land under dispute were attested by Mutating Officer on 12.6.1991 and 30.4.1992 respectively. Petitioner herein filed two separate appeals on11.10.2001, thereby challenging the mutation. 3. Along with appeals, applications for condoning the delay in filling appeals were also filed. In applications, it has been stated that appellant came to know about attestations of mutation only three/four days back from patwari halqa and after enquiry from Office, he applied for copies and engaged counsel. 4. Court below after hearing the parties held that both the appeals are time barred and also held that appellant was neither land lord nor tenant in Kharief 1971, so he was not a necessary party to be called at the time of attestation of mutation. The relevant para of impugned order is as under; I have gone through the record available on the file and arguments put forth by the Counsel for the parties and have given my due consideration to the law point is case. The order impugned have also been passed on 12.6.1991 and 30.4.1992 and the appeal have been filed on 11.10.2001 i.e. after the lapse of 10 years 3 months and 28 days. The contention of the Counsel for appellant that he was not summoned. But the perusal of the entries in the record reveals that he is neither figures in owners nor in tenants column i.e. He is not an interested party. The contention of the Counsel for appellant that he was not summoned. But the perusal of the entries in the record reveals that he is neither figures in owners nor in tenants column i.e. He is not an interested party. As such there is no question of summoning him to provide an opportunity of being heard.Another argument of counsel for appellant that the land in question being Banzer Quadim is also not based on facts.As per the eateries of revenue record, the land in question is culturable land and is in continuous cultivating possession of the respondent. As, the provisions of section 4 and 8 of the Agr.Ref.Act 1976 have been legally and rightly made applicable. As such, there is no substantial question of law involved. The appeal, thus, fails on the point of limitation and a re, therefore, dismissed without any order as to thee costs. The respondent may file application for restoration of the possession before the Collector as no person can hold land against the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The stay order issued if any is also vacated. The file be consigned to records after it due completion. Announced 20.11.2005 Sd./- Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, (With powers of Commr. Agr. Reforms), Jammu. 5. Agrarian Reforms Act is meant for providing land of landlord to tiller, who was cultivating the land in Kharif 1971. A tenant who was in cultivating possession of land and was paying rent to landlord would get benefit of section 4 and 8 of act. As per section 4 of Act rights, title and interest of land lord extinguishes to State, if he was not in cultivating possession of land in Kharif 1971. This follows, by conferring right as prospective owner on tenants, who were in cultivating possession of land in girdawari of Kharif 1971.. In term of section 7 of act an owner of land can resume it for bonafide personal cultivation as per procedure laid in section. If land is not resumed then section 8 of act comes into operation. As per section 8 of act owner ship right is conferred upon prospective owner declared under section 4 of Act. 6. For the purpose of act, certain Revenue officers have appointed in term of section 18 of the Act. These officers have been assigned the job of resolving dispute between landlord and tenant pertaining to land defined under the Act. As per section 8 of act owner ship right is conferred upon prospective owner declared under section 4 of Act. 6. For the purpose of act, certain Revenue officers have appointed in term of section 18 of the Act. These officers have been assigned the job of resolving dispute between landlord and tenant pertaining to land defined under the Act. So there should be relationship of land lord and tenant between parties to litigation under this act. In present case, from record and revenue document, I find that petitioner or his predecessor is neither landlord nor owner of land in dispute, so court below was right in his finding that Petitioner was not interested person to be called, while attesting mutations. 7. Another finding of court below with regard to appeals being time barred is also correct, because in application for condonation of delay in filling appeals, no sufficient cause has been shown. In application, without mentioning any date, it has been written in 4-5 lines, that, applicant came to know about mutations 3-4 days back from patwari and after enquiring from office applied for copies and thereafter engaged counsel. Law is very much clear that each and every day after the limitation period is to be explained by a person seeking benefit of section 5 of limitation Act. In the present case a general averments have made with regard to sufficient cause. Law of limitation has to applied, where party fails to show sufficient cause. In AIR 1998 Page 2276 case title P.K Ramachandran v. State of Kerla it is held as under:- (C) Limitation Act 36 of 1953 -- Section 5 -- Delay -- Condonation of -- Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by statue -- Court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. Para 6 -- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with its entire rigor prescribed by statue court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by high court was thus, neither proper nor judicious.The order condoning delay cannot be sustained. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed as order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Record be sent back along with this order. The discretion exercised by high court was thus, neither proper nor judicious.The order condoning delay cannot be sustained. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed as order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Record be sent back along with this order. File of this court shall be consigned to records after due compilation.