JUDGMENT : KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Ld. ADC designated as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama, in an appeal case No. 328/ADC/APP, for setting aside the same. To put in brief the facts of the case are that one Rasool Qazi, died survived by four sons and a daughter given in a pedigree table. The parties to revision are successor in interest of late Rasool Qazi, who left his landed estate in three villages i.e. Tiken Batapora, Belov Dergund and Sonsamil Tehsil Pulwam. The said landed estate left by the common ancestor of parties i.e. late Rasool Qazi vests in favour of his all sons and daughter, mentioned in the pedigree table and are accordingly in a joint possession of the same. The respondents/their ancestors hired the services of then Naib Tehsildar, who passed a "Sehat-e-Kasht Mutation Order" bearing No. 667/1 for the land consisting 5 kanals comprised of survey No. 181 min and land 1 kanal 19 marlas comprised of survey No. 366 situated at village Sonsamil, Pulwama in the revenue record, on 20.02.1987 whereby got themselves declared as tenants. Thereafter by giving reference of the said mutation order supra, got directly a mutation order No. 1064, styled the same mutation under section 8 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, from Tehsildar Settlement Pulwama on 29.12.2006 in total derogation of the above referred "Sehat-e-Kasht Mutation" 2. That the petitioner once got the knowledge of these mutation orders on account of refusal of share of produce to her in November 2007, she assailed these mutation orders by way of submission of appeals before Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner designated as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama on 15.11.2007. The Learned court below vide its order dated 27.11.2013, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by Ld. Court below as well as the mutation orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Settlement Pulwama respectively challenged the same before this Tribunal on the following grounds:- i. That the impugned order is result of total illegal and irregular exercise of jurisdiction vested with the court below for condone or not to condone the delay in light of provisions of J&K Limitation Act, applicable to appeals by force of Section 22 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and the rules there under. This illegal and irregular exercise of jurisdiction caused clear abuse of process of law. Hence in light of this legal backdrop, the matter needs indulgence of this Tribunal, by exercising its revisional supervisory jurisdiction to set right the illegalities committed by the court below; ii. That the admitted position of record available with the court below now before this Tribunal, is that the mutation orders under appeals have been passed in ex-parte at the back of the petitioner in gross violation of Rule-14 read with Rule 55 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1977. The Ld. Naib Tehsildar when passed the Sehat-e-Kasht mutation order No. 667/1 or the Ld. Tehsildar Settlement Pulwama when passed the mutation No. 1064 have not bothered to summon the petitioner for providing the petitioner a chance of hearing, despite the fact that doing so was a legal obligation to them. This legal and factual resume of case was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, if any held by the court below. Otherwise, law of land is that if order has been passed in ex parte, the time will run from the date of knowledge against the party affected by the order. Hence on this count also, the impugned order passed by the court below is totally illegal and against the law and this is liable to be set aside; iii. That the court below has also failed to provide a chance to the petitioner to establish the cause of delay in sub mission of appeals by leading evidence, as envisaged under law. The parties to the appeals and its affect on the passing of impugned mutation order by brother/their sons with regard to their own land as well as the land of petitioner i.e. their sister. The court below in a most cursory and arbitrary manner has gave reference that the petitioner has given her signatures in the Munsiff Court, on the basis of that the impugned mutation order has been passed. The court below of his own imagination, without having any factual basis, observed that the petitioner has knowledge about Sehat-e-kasht mutation order under appeal. So in view of these facts the impugned order passed by the court below is perverse, erroneous, unjustified, illegal and against law, and is, as such, liable to be set aside; iv. The court below of his own imagination, without having any factual basis, observed that the petitioner has knowledge about Sehat-e-kasht mutation order under appeal. So in view of these facts the impugned order passed by the court below is perverse, erroneous, unjustified, illegal and against law, and is, as such, liable to be set aside; iv. That the court below under the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under has to swift minutely the merit of case with the object to see whether the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under has carried and implemented in accordance with its object. The court below has failed to consider, that the Naib Tehsildar has no competence to declare the respondents/their ancestor the tiller with the affect from Kharif 1971. And that also in the year 1987, against the statutory prohibition laid down under section -13 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. That the impugned orders have been passed at the back of petitioner in ex parte, against the statutory prohibition laid down under Rule-14 read with Rule-55 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1977; v. That the impugned mutation orders under appeals are totally without jurisdiction against the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under. This impugned order of court below rather a seal on these illegalities committed during the course of attestation of these impugned mutation orders. Hence the impugned order has been passed in violation of order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, which gives the way and method of passing the order for the court below. 3. The other side has submitted that petitioner Mst. Raja Bibi is a non-resident of village Ticken has never been in physical possession right from 1954 after compromise arrived before Learned Munsiff Shopian. The petitioner has never paid the land revenue confirming thereby her absenteeism and non-possession. The application filed by the petitioner before Tehsildar Pulwama on 07.08.2000 detailing therein that she may be given the possession of the land which is with khewatdaran. The petitioner herself writes that agrarian Reforms cannot be applicable. The petitioner has never paid the land revenue confirming thereby her absenteeism and non-possession. The application filed by the petitioner before Tehsildar Pulwama on 07.08.2000 detailing therein that she may be given the possession of the land which is with khewatdaran. The petitioner herself writes that agrarian Reforms cannot be applicable. The respondents have put her on notice in the year 2000 about the developments regarding the land, thereby petitioner has received knowledge of the mutations right from the date of her application i.e. 2000 before challenging the mutation No. 667/1 in 2007 remaining in deep slumber for at least seven long years, which as per the law of condonation has to be explained thereby the delay in filing the appeal has been intentional and deliberate, the same has been brushed aside by writing there was no willful delay. The respondents further submitted that the order impugned has been passed after hearing the contesting parties at length and the mutations has been attested as per compromise arrived at by the parties before the Learned Munsiff Shopian which cannot be not be challenged as held by Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner misleading the court by not reading the records correctly. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record available on file and also gone the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Addl. Deputy Commissioner) Pulwama. 5. The above captioned revision petition is regarding the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Ld. ADC designated as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama, in an appeal case No. 328/ADC/APP titled "Mst. Raja v. Gani Qazi & Others" whereby he rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred by a composite order, which is impugned in the present revision. 6. The respondents herein are issues of their late brothers, namely, Umar Qazi and Gani Qazi. These nephews of the petitioner herein manage of mutation of "Sehat-e-Kasht" bearing No. 667 dated 20.02.1987 and on the basis of this Sehat-e-Kasht mutation, straightway mutation bearing No. 1064 dated 29.12.2006 under section-8 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The land involved is comprised of survey Nos. 181 min(5 kanals), 366 min (1 Kanal 9 Marlas), recorded as an orchard in impugned mutation orders. The land involved is comprised of survey Nos. 181 min(5 kanals), 366 min (1 Kanal 9 Marlas), recorded as an orchard in impugned mutation orders. The petitioner assailed these mutation orders by way of two separate appeals, submitted before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner designated Commissioner Agrarian for District Pulwama on 15.11.2007. Alongside these appeals, the petitioner herein moved an application, as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 3-A, CPC, with the mandation of Rule 48 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules 1977, seeking therein the condition of delay occasioned in the presentation of these appeals. The other side appeared and objected the said application by submitting their formal objections. The petitioner in her application for condonation of delay has taken various ground such as that the impugned mutation orders have been passed at her back in ex-parte. As submitted by the petitioner that she came to know about the impugned mutation orders on last week of month of October 2007, when the respondents denied the share of usufructs of land on the count of these mutation orders. As submitted that petitioner never was expected that her nephews can manage the impugned mutation orders in their favour more particularly in view of her relation with them and more so when the land in question is orchard and recorded so in the revenue record. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mutation orders have been passed in total disregard of principle of natural justice in breached of Rule 14 read with Rule-55 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules. Besides, the impugned mutation orders have been passed in total breach of provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1977, such as the Naib Tehsildar passed the Sehat-e-Kasht mutation order No. 667/1 beyond his jurisdiction as there is expressly bars the jurisdiction of Naib Tehsildar to pass such mutation orders as envisaged under Rule 14 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules 1977. Otherwise also, the impugned mutation order has been passed against the statutory prohibition laid down under Section 13(2) [Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no tenancy created or continued after the first day of May, 1973 in respect of any land shall be valid.] of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. 8. That there exists no tenant landlord relationship in between the petitioner and respondents nor any such relation is possible among them in view of their blood relation. 8. That there exists no tenant landlord relationship in between the petitioner and respondents nor any such relation is possible among them in view of their blood relation. Hence immune from the application of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The land in question comprised of survey No. 366 is an orchard and is recorded so in kharif 1971, as is evident from the entries while regarded the impugned mutations. Hence the orchard is immune from the application of the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. 9. That the Sehat-e-Kasht mutation order No. 667/1 has been passed with regard to land comprised of survey Nos. 181 min and 366 min, while the impugned mutation No. 1064 passed by Tehsildar styled the same, the mutation under section 8 passed in complete derogation of Sehat-e-Kasht mutation No. 667/1 for different land falling under different survey No. 188/366, despite the fact that he made the basis for mutation supra, the Segat-e-Kasht mutation No. 667/1. These facts were pleaded before the appellate authority i.e. court below that too when the mutation orders were attested in ex parte at the back of petitioner, such mutation orders are nullity and non-est under law and misleading of justice. The legal jurisdiction is that an arbitrary and capricious approach would fundamentally shake the allegiance to the law. Revisional jurisdiction is an extra ordinary discretionary power vested in the superior courts to be exercised in aid of justice and set aside the grave injustice. The legislature has conferred the power to condone the delay by enacting the Section -5 of Limitation Act, in order to enable the courts to apply law in a meaningful manner which sub-serve the ends of justice. The Apex Courts while elaborated the law on the subject has taken consistent view that liberal approach is to be adopted, otherwise meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold on mere technically and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a controversy/cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties when substantial justice and technical considerations can be pitted against each other, the cause of justice deserve to be preferred. 10. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a controversy/cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties when substantial justice and technical considerations can be pitted against each other, the cause of justice deserve to be preferred. 10. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 2010 (6) JKJ 875 [SC] Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein at para 3, it has been held as under:- "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters of 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appellate. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respect not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice -oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the state as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner." 11. In another case titled Union of India v. Giani reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 977, wherein at para 3, it has been held as under:- "3. Having examined the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay in filing all the appeals and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals must be allowed as the statements in the applications for condonation of delay, in our view, do constitute sufficient cause in not preferring the appeals within the period of limitation. We, therefore, condone delay in all the appeals. We have taken such a view in this matter as we feel that there is a strong arguable case on behalf of the appellants and, therefore, it is felt necessary that the court should decide the matter of merit by giving the e(sic) expression sufficient cause a pragmatic justice -oriented approach." 12. The petitioner has a strong arguable case on merit and was having a sufficient cause for condonation of delay as there exists no tenant landlord relationship in between the petitioner and respondents nor any such relation is possible among them in view of their blood relation. Also the Survey No. 366 is an orchard and is recorded so in kharif 1971, as is evident from the entries while regarded the impugned mutations. The orchard is immune from the application of the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. Also the Survey No. 366 is an orchard and is recorded so in kharif 1971, as is evident from the entries while regarded the impugned mutations. The orchard is immune from the application of the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The Sehat-e-Kasht Mutation No. 667/1 has been passed with regard to land comprised of survey Nos. 181 min and 366 min, while the impugned mutation order No. 1064 passed by Tehsildar under section 8 in complete derogation of Sehat-e-Kasht mutation No. 667/1 for different land falling under different survey No. 188/366, despite the fact that he made the basis for mutation supra. Such mutation orders are nullity and non-est under law. The law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in the case titled JKJ Soft JKJ/22500, Suraj Prakash v. Hon'ble Member Special Tribunal in OWP No. 949 of 1994 reported in 1996 SLJ page 285 wherein it has been held as under:- "J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 : Time barred appeal against a mutation attested in absence of the appellant- appeal filed without an application for condonation of delay- such mutation held a nullity and non-est in the eye of law- appeal held maintainable. Section 19 & 4 Agrarian Reforms Rules: Rule 4: Dispute regarding tenancy/personal cultivation-held the authorities must settle such dispute after visiting spot." 13. Keeping above discussion and the law laid down into consideration, the appellate authority/court below under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under has to swift minutely the merit of case with the object to see whether the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under has carried and implemented in accordance with its object. The court below has failed to consider, that the Naib Tehsildar has no competence to declare the respondents/their ancestor the tiller with the affect from kharif 1971 and that also in the year 1987, against the statutory prohibition laid down under Section -13(2) of J&K Agrarian reforms Act 1976. The provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and Rules there under are applicable in view of the relation in between the parties. Not only one part of land comprised by survey No. 366 is admittedly an orchard and is recorded so. Whether in such situation the mutation orders under challenge before him were sustainable under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, when such land is immune from its application. Not only one part of land comprised by survey No. 366 is admittedly an orchard and is recorded so. Whether in such situation the mutation orders under challenge before him were sustainable under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, when such land is immune from its application. The impugned order passed under section 4 & 8 have been passed under the Sehat-e-Kasht mutation order No. 667/1 which stand passed in detailed derogation of the said mutation for the different survey No. i.e. 181/366 consisting 5 kanals of land. The petitioner has brought attention of the court below towards all these legal pleas. But the court below has not bothered to whispered a word with regard to these legal pleas, rather failed to understand mandate of Rule -52 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules and passed the order on the presumptions and assumptions in order to get rid of the legal responsibility. The impugned order has been passed in violation of order 41 Rule-31 CPC, which gives the way and method of passing the order of the court below. Viewed thus, the impugned mutation orders under the appeal are totally without jurisdiction and against the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and Rules there under. The impugned order of court below rather a seal on these illegalities committed during the course of attestation of these impugned mutation orders will cause further miscarriage of justice, therefore, the impugned orders passed by Ld. Additional Deputy Commissioner designated as Commissioner Agrarian reforms Pulwama dated 06.05.2013 along with the order dated 28.10.2006 passed by Collector Agrarian Reforms (ACR) Pulwama are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector ACR (Pulwama), to adjudicate upon the application for recovery of possession of land moved by respondents herein afresh in accordance with law and procedure laid down under law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the court before on 21.08.2017. The revision is accordingly disposed of and shall be consigned to records after its due completion. The court below file, if called, be send back along with the copy of the order.