1. These three revision petitions have been entertained by this Court on 9.1.2008 and a common order was passed. Thereafter these three revision petitions have been prosecuted by the counsels and interim orders from time to time, have been passed in revision petition no. 1. 2. Rawail singh (deceased respondent no.1), herein filed three appeals against the order of Mutating officer Bari Brahamana Samba, firstly against Mutation no. 1458 attested by Naib Tehsildar, by virtue of which he corrected Cultivation column of girdawari from kharif 1971 to 1974, on the name of Roop Lal and Rajinder Singh. Second appeal was filed with regard to mutation no. 1483 dt 7.12 1982 attested under section 4 of agrarian reform act and lastly with regard to mutation no.1510 dt. 8.2.1983 attestted under section u/s 8 of Agrarian Reform Act on the names of Roop Lal and Rajinder Singh. All these three mutation pertains to land measuring 12 kanals 14 marlals under khasra No. 1540 situated at village Birpuur Tehsil and Distt Samba. Court below have accepted, all these appeals and remanded the case back to Tehsildar for fresh inquiry on 30.3.2007. 3. In the memo of revision petitions, petitioners have stated that respondent no. 1 Rawail Singh ( DECEASED ), filed three separate appeals thereby challenging the mutations nos. 1458, 1483 and mutation no; 1510, whereby girdawari entry of cultivation from Kharief 1971 to Kharief 1974, was corrected under the provision of Agrarian Reform Act on the name of Rooplal and Rajinder singh and thereafter mutations u/s 4 and section 8 of Agrarian Reform Act were attested in their favour. That all the appeals were clubbed together and disposed off by common judgment dt 30.3.2007. That impugned order has been passed at the back of petitioners. No notice was given to petitioners. That it is the first week of Dec, 2007, petitioners came to know from Patwari, that mutations have been set aside. 4. It has further been stated in memo of revision petition that, Roop lal and Rajinder Singh were in physical possession of land measuring 12 k 14 marlasl under khasra no. 1540 situated at village Birpur prior to Kharief 1971. That during Kharif 1971 Roop lal was in possession of 8 kanals 14 marlasl of land and Rajinder was in possession of 4 kanals of land under Khasra no. 1540. 1540 situated at village Birpur prior to Kharief 1971. That during Kharif 1971 Roop lal was in possession of 8 kanals 14 marlasl of land and Rajinder was in possession of 4 kanals of land under Khasra no. 1540. That owner of land were Qabla Singh and karnail Singh and recorded tenant was Munshi Ram, who relinquished his tenancy right in favour of land-lord in the year 1965. That this land was in personal cultivation of Roop lal and Rajinder Singh, as tenants under Quabla Singh and karnail Singh. That effect of relinquishment was not given in revenue record and tenancy remained on the name of Munshi Ram from Kharief 1971 to Kharief 1974. That after the enforcement of Agrarian Reform Act, correction of girdawri entry were made by mutation no; 1458 dt. 25.5.82, whereby land measuring 8 kanals 14 marlas and land measuring 4 kanals was corrected on the name of Roop lal and Rajinder singh. That mutation no. 1483 dt. 7.11.82 and mutation no; 1510 dt. 8.2.1983 were attested u/s 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reform Act in their favour. That Roop lal died and his estate has devolved upon petitioners. A mutation of inheritance no. 1503 dt. 8.11.1988 has been attested. 5. That kartar Singh and others who were owners and had effected partition in Khewat No. 2 and Khata No; 13 prior to 1950 and land comprising khasra No. 1540 along with other land had fallen in share of Sansar Singh the father of Qabla Singh and Karnail Singh. Tenancy in favour of Munshi Ram was created prior to 1965.Munshi Ram surrendered his tenancy in favour of land-lord in 1965, so Rawail had no concern with the land. That owners were not cultivating the land, so mutation u/s 4 of Agrarian Reform Act was attested thereby divesting Qabla Singh and Karnal Singh of their ownership rights. The order impugned, passed by Court below is without jurisdiction. That question of law and public importance is involved in the case. That Rawail singh was having no locus for filing appeals. That Court below has passed order in ex party. That petitioners are in physical possession of said land and they have mortgaged this said land with J&K Bank and has raised a loan of Rs. 80.00 lacs. 6. Heard. That Rawail singh was having no locus for filing appeals. That Court below has passed order in ex party. That petitioners are in physical possession of said land and they have mortgaged this said land with J&K Bank and has raised a loan of Rs. 80.00 lacs. 6. Heard. Counsel for petitioners has elaborated all grounds taken in memo of revision petitions, whereas respondents counsel has supported impugned order, written arguments has also been filled. 7. I have gone through the records of Court below, which reveals that Rawail Singh( deceased respondent ) filed three appeals before Court below thereby challenging the mutations, as already mentioned above. 8. In all three appeals, appellants challenged the validity of mutations on the grounds that land is in physical possession of him, sons and daughter, where they have constructed residential houses. That appellants and Performa respondents therein, are co-sharer and they never been called while attesting the mutations. That Niab Tehsildar has assumed the powers and jurisdiction which were never vested to him. That it was only Tehsildar, who can attest mutation u/s 31 of Agrarian Ref Act. That agreement to sell dated 17.6.1974 is a document which is a clear cut violation of Agrarian Reform Act. That when there occurs a dispute of girdawri entries of land, then it is mandatory for attesting officer to visit on spot, but no one visited the spot. 9. The Court below after hearing the appellant, passed the order, which is under challenge, as petitioners, herein did not appear despite affixing of summon on house in presence of witness. The relevant para of impugned para is reads as under; I have gone through the record available on the file. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and I have given my due consideration to the law point involved in the case. Firstly, the appellant being a necessary party were required to be heard for being the powers co-sharer in the land. Secondly the mutation was attested u/s 31 of the Act, which clearly indicates that some transactions has taken place and a dispute exists with respect to the cultivating possession of the land in question. But in any case, the Naib Tehsildar should have referred the case to Tehsildar/Collector as the case may be for disposal. Secondly the mutation was attested u/s 31 of the Act, which clearly indicates that some transactions has taken place and a dispute exists with respect to the cultivating possession of the land in question. But in any case, the Naib Tehsildar should have referred the case to Tehsildar/Collector as the case may be for disposal. Thirdly the respondents are reported to be non State subjects and, it was obligatory for the Officer attesting the mutation to verify this basic condition. Fourthly the land in question is reported to have been under the residential houses of the appellant and under these circumstances, the attestation of mutation in favour of respondent is against the spot position. Thus the order impugned are not maintainable and needs de novo enquiry and appropriate orders. For the foregoing reasons, the delay in filling the appeals is condoned and the appeals are accepted. The orders passed on mutation no. 1483 dated 7.2.1982, mutation no. 1510 dt 8.2.83 and mutation no. 1458 dated nil u/s 4, 8 and 31 respectively of the Agrarian Reforms act 1976 in respect of land under Khasra No. 154- measuring 12 kanals 14 marlas of village Birpur Tehsil samba District Jammu is set aside and the case is remanded to Tehsildar samba for de novo enquiry and fresh orders. The stay order is also vacated. The file be consigned to records after due completion. Announced 30.3.2007 Sd/- Jt. Agr. Reaforms Commissioner (With powers of Commr. Agr. Reforms), Jammu. 10. Bare perusal of impugned order, it is evident that Court below accepted the appeals on the grounds that, the appellant therein / respondents herein, being co owners of land, so was necessary party and was required to be heard while attestation of mutations, secondly court suspected that some transactions has taken place and so a dispute existed with respect to the cultivating possession of the land in question and thus while attesting mutation under section 31 of act, Niab Tehsildar was required to refer the matter to Tehsildar concern. Thirdly the respondents are reported to be non State subjects and so it was obligatory for the Officer attesting the mutation, to verify this basic condition. Fourthly the land in question is reported to have been under the residential houses of the appellant and under these circumstances, the attestation of mutation in favour of respondent is against the spot position. 11. Fourthly the land in question is reported to have been under the residential houses of the appellant and under these circumstances, the attestation of mutation in favour of respondent is against the spot position. 11. All these findings are totally in conformity with law on the subject. Rule 4 of agrarian reform rules clearly mandate that, in case of dispute with regard to girdawari entries, it is only Tehsildar concern, who is competent to conduct the inquiry. For this purpose, Tehsildar concern has to call all the parties interested and after giving them opportunity of being heard, conduct an inquiry on spot and thereafter pass any order. Procedure of relinquishment of tenancy by a tenant has been provided in section 41 of tenancy act. All these mandates of law have to be followed by all concern, while dealing the subject. Further, it is only permanent resident of state, who is competent to acquire the land in state of J&K. So finding of court below that, this aspect is also to be verified, is also correct. 12. So far question of limitation is concerned, now it is cardinal principle of law that, any mutation attested in absence of a party entitled to land defined under agrarian reform act 1976, that mutation is held to be non est and nullity in eye of law. Thus any appeal filed against the order of non est 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 interested party, because limitation act is applicable to proceeding of appeal in term of section 22(2) of agrarian reform act. The fact that mutations has been attested in absence of interested party, amounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, in term of section 5 of Limitation Act. 13. In present case, court below has condoned delay in filing appeals, on the ground that mutations were attested in absence of appellant, so order of court below in condoning the delay in filing appeals, does not suffers from any legal infirmity. 14. Further court below by passing the order has not finally determined any legal right of parties. 13. In present case, court below has condoned delay in filing appeals, on the ground that mutations were attested in absence of appellant, so order of court below in condoning the delay in filing appeals, does not suffers from any legal infirmity. 14. Further court below by passing the order has not finally determined any legal right of parties. This court is exercising power of revision in term of section 3 of special Tribunal Act 1986, which were previously exercised by Revenue minister under section 21(2) of agrarian reform act. Section 21 of A. R. Act, 1976 deals with appeals and revisions. It reads as under:- 1. 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. 2. 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. 15. A plain reading of this section, it is apparent that revision is maintainable before this court only against final order of commissioner and that too, if question of law or public interest is involved. So in this way, a final order and existence of question of law or public interest are sine qua for exercising revisional jurisdiction U/S 21 (2) of Agrarian Reforms Act. Revisional authority has to record its findings with respect to these conditions. Final order is that order, which finally determines any legal right of parties. 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. 16. 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. 16. In present case, Court below has only remanded the case to Tehsildar for de novo inquiry and no final right of any parties to litigation has been decided. Matter is still alive and any part, if aggrieved by the order of Tehsildar, has remedy to approach higher forum. Impugned order is neither final order nor there appears any existence of question of law or of public interest. 17. Hence all three revision petitions are dismissed. Record of court below is sent back along with this order. A copy of order be placed in all three files. Files of this court shall be consigned to records after due compilation.