ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner have filed instant revision petition against the order dated; 6th May, 2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Rajouri by virtue of which mutation no; 240 and 346 attested under section 4 and 12 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 respectively in respect of the land 06 kanals 18 marlas comprises under Survey No. 53 min situated at Manyal tehsil Thanna Mandi, whereby petitioner was declared as prospective owner and subsequently absolute owner and Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the mutations attested on 15th January, 1985 and 26 Feb, 1994. Impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri is patiently wrong and not in accordance with the law and Deputy Commissioner has accepted the appeal of the respondent which was time-barred and the said Officer has made no wisp her in the impugned order and on the sole ground, the order impugned deserved to be set aside. Moreover, the advocate who was representing the petitioner was not provided to an opportunity to advanced the arguments about the maintainability of the appeal. Order is bad in the eyes of law. 2. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred citation report in 2009 Supplement JKJ 590 [HC] titled Mohan Singh and others v. J&K Special Tribunal and another judgment reported in 2008(2) JKJ 744 [HC] Ranjwas Silk Industry v. J&K Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that in case operation of the impugned order is not stayed, the respondents would evict the petitioners from the land in question and the revision petition would become infructuous. 4. I have hear and perused the file mutually. Issue notice to the other side, till the next date of hearing. Operation of the impugned order hereby stayed. However, this order would subject to objections filed by the other side. Let the file come up on 4th October, 2013.