1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu, by virtue of which Court below has set aside mutation no, 2424 dt. 30.121987, attested under as section of 4 of Agrarian Reform Act and mutation no. 2470 dt. 10.3.19990, attested u/s 8 of Agrarian Reform Act, with regard to land measuring 10 marlas under Khasra No. 154, 1 kanals under Khasra No. 155 and 9 marlas under Kh.no. 156, total measuring 1 kanals 19 marls, situated at village ploura Tehsil Jammu. 2. These mutations have been set aside on the grounds that as land in dispute was uncultureable/ non agricultural i.e. Banger Kadim and Ghair Mumkin in 1971, so Agrarian, Reforms Act is not applicable and thus no mutation can attested. 3. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on grounds that, order is against facts and law. That respondent was not owner of land and it is Mst. Saro Devi who was owner of land. That Saro Devi expired and respondent alleged that, Saro Devi executed a will in his favour with regard to land. That petitioner is in possession of land and he made the land cultivable. That respondent filed a suit and that suit has been dismissed on ground that respondent was not in possession of land. That said will have been challenged by other successor of Saro Devi. That Jt. Agr Reforms Commissioner was not having any jurisdiction to give any relief in appeal to respondent. That Saro Devi never challenged the mutation in her life time. 4. I have heard counsel for petitioner at length and perused the record of Court below. 5. From the perusal of records it appears that, on 8.9.2003 respondent filed two appeals whereby challenging the two mutations attested U/s 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, with regard to land mentioned above. Both the appeals were accompanied with application of condoning the delay in filing appeals. Court below clubbed both the appeal and by way of common order on 3.12.2004, allowed the appeals and set aside the mutations on the grounds that Agrarian Reform Act is not applicable to land which is Banger Kadim and Gher Mumkin in kharif 1971. Court below also observed that no Part Sarkar is available and entry of petitioner has been shown to be made through Farad-Baddar. 6. Court below also observed that no Part Sarkar is available and entry of petitioner has been shown to be made through Farad-Baddar. 6. I have given my thought consideration to all aspect of matter and gone through law dealing the subject. 7. Agrarian Reform act 1976 has been formulated in order to give land to tiller, who was cultivating the land in kharif 1971. Section 4 of Act envisaged that firstly, all right and title and interest in the land of any person shall be deemed to be extinguished and vested in State. Tiller or tenant, who was cultivating land in kharif 1971, is termed as prospective owner of that land. Further as per section 8, the tiller who cultivating in kharif 1971 land and has conferred with right of prospective ownership, shall be vested with ownership right. 8. So, for attesting mutation of prospective ownership in term of section 4 of act and mutation of ownership right under section 8 of act, there should be land as defined in Section 2(9) of Act. 9. Section 2(9) of Agrarian Reform Act 1976 is relevant for deciding the matter, it reads as under:- Land means land which was occupied or was let for agricultural purpose or for purpose subservient to agriculture or for pasture in kharif 1971 and includes (a) Structure on such land used for the purpose connected with agriculture (b) Areas covered by, or field floating over, water (c) Forest lands and wooden waste (d) trees standing on land but does not include an orchard or site of building or a structure within municipal area town area, notified area or village abadi or any land appurtenant to such building or structure. 10. A plain reading of this definition, clause it is manifest that for attesting mutation under sections 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act 1976, land should be cultivable /agricultural in kharif 1971. Except, clauses of land mentioned in this section, no mutation under sections 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act, can be attested with regard to other land. 11. I have gone through the revenue record of kharif 1971. From bare perusal of revenue record, it is evident that land, for which mutations have been attested under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act, is Banjar Quadim and Gair Mumkin. This land does not fall in above definition. 11. I have gone through the revenue record of kharif 1971. From bare perusal of revenue record, it is evident that land, for which mutations have been attested under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform act, is Banjar Quadim and Gair Mumkin. This land does not fall in above definition. So order of court below is legal and correct. 12. In view of what has been discussed and law on the point, the order impugned does not suffer from any legal defect.This revision petition accordingly is dismissed. Record of court below is sent back along with order.