1. Petitioner has questioned the order dated 28th March, 2005 passed in writ petition titled as Mohda Dar v. Fayaz Ahmad Dar and others, made by Financial Commissioner Revenue-Respondent No. 1, for short impugned order. 2. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply and contested the same. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. Mutation No. 804 dated 30th August, 2000, of Village Seer Jagir, Tehsil Sopore was attested, in exparte, in favour of Mahda Dar son of Mohammad Dar. 5. Feeling aggrieved, writ petitioners-the legal representatives of Rehman Dar, filed Revision Petition before respondent No.1 and questioned the said mutation on the ground that Mohammad Dar has left behind two sons namely Rehman Dar and Mahda Dar, but mutatioin has been affected only in favour of Mohda Dar thereby Rehman Dar has been excluded from inheritance. The revision petition was allowed vide order dated 13th August, 2003-Annexure PI with the writ petition, and the case was remanded back with the direction to attest mutation in favour of Rehman Dar. 6. After noticing the said order, Mahda Dar-respondent No. 2 made an application for re-hearing the revision petition, which was allowed and the revision petition was reheard on 2nd June, 2004. 7. After the re-hearing of the revision petition, the order dated 13th August, 2003 was maintained vide order dated 15th June, 2004-Annexure-P2. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 15th June, 2004, respondents filed review petition on 21st June, 2004, in which notice was issued. 9. Order dated 21st June, 2004, constrained the petitioners to question it by the medium of writ petition, OWP No. 471 of 2004, which too was dismissed but with an observation that respondent No. 1 -Financial Commissioner shall decide the main petition expeditiously. 10. Writ petitioners, however, did not feel satisfied, therefore, questioned the same by the medium of an appeal being LPA No. 123/2004. The LPA was dismissed and the LPA Bench held that re-hearing was permissible under law and order passed in rehearing application cannot be said to be a review order, therefore, maintained the judgment of writ court and directed the authority-respondent No. 1 to decide the revision petition/review, at an earliest preferably within three months. It is apt to reproduce last two paragraphs of the judgment herein:- "It is evident that what was decided earlier by the Authority was 'rehearing application'. It is apt to reproduce last two paragraphs of the judgment herein:- "It is evident that what was decided earlier by the Authority was 'rehearing application'. The revision had been decided ex parte, and it was open to the respondent to apply for hearing on merit. The Authority in the circumstances could hear the parties on merits. The earlier order can not be said to be a review order. Be that as it may, as already observed by the learned Single Judge, it is open to the appellant to raise all questions of law and fact including maintainability of the revision/review petition before the Authority. Needless to say that objections will be considered by the Authority and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed. The decision should be taken at the earliest, preferably within three months." Revisional court- respondent No.2 heard the review petition and allowed the same vide order dated 28th March, 2005 and upheld the mutation No. 804 in presence of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that review petition was not maintainable and order dated 28th March, 2005 is illegal. Though attractive, the argument is devoid of force. On the matter reaching before this court in appeal before LPA Bench, which held that not review but re-hearing application has been decided and accordingly directed the authority to hear the review petition, which thereafter was allowed. But when the review petition was allowed, the revisional court had to consider the revision petition after hearing both the parties. The respondent No. 2 allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 13th August, 2003 and 15th June, 2004. This is a stand of learned counsel for both the parties, that civil litigation was pending and also a decree has been passed by the civil court before revision petition was filed. The revisional court has not taken into consideration the said aspects. The review court - respondent No. 2 after examining the review petition was required to allow review petition and to hear the revision petition on merits, after providing sufficient opportunities of hearing to the parties, which has not been done. It is also a moot question as to whether the revision petition was maintainable in view of the fact that civil court decree, pendency of civil dispute and operation of Agrarian Reforms Act. It is also a moot question as to whether the revision petition was maintainable in view of the fact that civil court decree, pendency of civil dispute and operation of Agrarian Reforms Act. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that order dated 131h August, 2003 as also the order dated 28th March, 2005 is set-aside so far it relates to the mutation 804, but it is maintained as far as it pertains to allowing the review petition. With such observations the revision petition is revived and shall come up before respondent No. Ifor final disposal on 18th August, 2012. Parties are directed to cause appearance before respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 is directed to hear and determine the issue as per the law applicable, within a period of two months from the date the copy of the judgment is served upon him, of course without getting influenced by any observation made by this court supra. Viewed thus, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Registry to send a copy of this order, to respondent No.1 for information and compliance. Disposed of as such.