JUDGMENT : KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI, J. (MEMBER) 1. This is a revision petition presented by the petitioner against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner/Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Pulwama passed on 14.12.2011. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in cultivation of the land measuring 07 kanals and 04 marlas falling under survey No. 326 situated at the village Goripora for more than two decades which stood mutated in his name, besides the fact that the petitioner deposited the levy for the said land starting from the year 1989. Further submitted that the petitioner was in cultivation of the land to the complete knowledge of the respondents, who by their act of acquiescence conveyed their consent as to the mutation that was recorded in favour of the petitioner who was in cultivating possession of the suit land. The relationship of the petitioner with that of the respondents was of the tenant and landlord respectively. Further submitted that the respondent herein preferred the appeal against the mutation order No. 1007 passed by the Tehsildar Agrarian Pulwama with regard to the land measuring 07 kanal 04 marlas falling under survey No. 326. The appeal which was filed by the respondents herein suffered from serious legal defects besides that there was deliberate and willful delay of 20 years in challenging the mutation favouring the petitioner herein, the respondents had taken a refuge of some sale deed in the appeal which has no relevance at all in the eyes of the law owing to the fact that the important question that needs consideration is that as to who was in actual cultivation of the land in question and the execution of the Sale Deed cannot frustrate the purport and aim of Agrarian Reforms Act. The appeal in which impugned order has been passed nowhere reflects that respondents herein had kept the land in question for their personal use. The mutation recorded in favour of petitioner are based on the fact that the land in question was not in personal use cultivation of the landlords but of tenant (petitioner herein). The impugned order is bad for the reasons that on the one hand the respondents herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land from 1988 and on the other hand, they stated that they have no knowledge about the mutation dated 1989. The impugned order is bad for the reasons that on the one hand the respondents herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land from 1988 and on the other hand, they stated that they have no knowledge about the mutation dated 1989. Besides that the levy was filed by the revisionist (petitioner) and not by the respondents herein. The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.12.2011 on the following grounds:- I. That the impugned order has been passed in total derogation of the law as the respondents have taken contrary stands in their appeal and the impugned order should not have been output despite their contradictions. II. That the impugned order has been passed in a most mechanical and technical manner and the said order does not fall within the contours law and needs to be set aside. III. That the impugned order is bad for the reason that the petitioner herein being in possession, pays land revenue to the state which is strong evidence as to the fact of tenancy. IV. That the impugned order is bad as the commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama has not understood that the question of ownership was not to be decided and the question of actual cultivation was to be decided. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama has acted more like a civil court and exceeded the jurisdiction not vested in him. V. That the impugned order is bad as the commissioner agrarian Reforms Pulwama has set aside the mutation which has been passed after fulfilling the requirements of standing order 23-A. VI. That the impugned order passed by the commissioner is bad and is vague as he has not taken into consideration the period of limitation. The period of limitation has been condoned in a very casual manner. VII. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Pulwama) is bad for the reason that the respondents have miserably failed to show their claim on the suit land. The commissioner has passed the order without any legal foundation of the case of the respondents herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and record submitted by the court below and given thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 3. The commissioner has passed the order without any legal foundation of the case of the respondents herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and record submitted by the court below and given thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 3. Impugned order reveals that respondents herein have filed two appeals challenging the two mutations vide No. 1007 under section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and No. 1010 under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act dated 15.02.1989 respectively attested by Tehsildar Agrarian Pulwama for the survey No. 326 of Estate Goripora Tehsil Awantipora on the ground that the mutations have been attested without jurisdiction as there exists no tenant-landlord relationship between the respondents herein and petitioner, as the petitioner is nephew of the respondents herein and was never the tenant of the land under appeal. The Ld. Tehsildar for the reasons best known to him has created the tenancy in the matter which is in contravention to the statutory provisions laid down under section 13 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. That neither the procedure has been followed, nor the proper orders have been passed in terms of Rule 4 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules, while attesting the impugned mutation which is nullity and beyond ambit of law, because neither the parat-sarkar of the impugned mutation order has been submitted in concerned Tehsil, nor the prescribed mutation fee has been deposited in the Govt. Treasury. The same have passed in complete derogation of the procedure laid down under Standing Order 23-A and in ex parte i.e. at the back of the respondents herein. Treasury. The same have passed in complete derogation of the procedure laid down under Standing Order 23-A and in ex parte i.e. at the back of the respondents herein. Perusal of the relevant revenue records available in the instant case files, transpires that the land in question under survey No. 326 measuring 7 kanals and 4 marlas of estate Goripora was actually purchased by the respondents herein by way of Sale Deed duly registered under No. 49 dated 19.04.1969 and stand effected/implemented in the revenue records in terms of mutation No. 1006 dated 3.11.1988 in favour of the respondents herein and then was mutated in favour of the petitioners through mutation No. 1007 without date, under Section 4 and mutation No. 1010 dated 15.02.1989 under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, which clearly indicates that the above said mutations have been attested in a very clandestine manner and in gross violation of Agrarian Reforms Rules, In terms of the said Act, it is mandatory to rely on the ceiling date of Kharif 1971 while attesting such nature of mutations. But in the instant case, the rules have been violated at gross root level. It is not understood, as to how the attesting authority has created the tenancy in the matter between the respondents and petitioners just in two or four days against the provisions of tenancy Act Smvt. 1980. The parties are close relatives to each other as per the record available before me. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the main ground that appellant authority has passed the impugned order in a most casual and mechanical manner by allowing the time barred appeals against the mutations that were recorded as per the requirement of land laws which is bad for the reason that the court below has not even considered objections in the condonation application not to speak of adducing evidence. Further petitioner submits that he has been condemned unheard and the court below has violated principles of natural justice by depriving the petitioner of a right vested in him. The court below was under a legal obligation to consider the objections and at no point of time, the respondents herein have adduced any evidence and the delay has been condoned without following the purport and purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court below was under a legal obligation to consider the objections and at no point of time, the respondents herein have adduced any evidence and the delay has been condoned without following the purport and purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That the mutations recorded in favour of the petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The justifications in the impugned order does not hold any ground as there is no bar neither in the Agrarian Reforms Act nor in the Tenancy Act, that the tenant should not be relative of the landlord, the justification for setting aside the mutations is unknown and uncalled for. The court below has not adduced any evidence to prove that the parties are related to each other by any other relationship other than landlord and tenant. The petitioner has deposited the levy for the land in question and the court below has not given any finding to that extent which alone renders the impugned judgment bad in the eyes of law. The court below has taken a novel stand while deciding the condonation application and has supported its judgment to the extent of condonation on the footing that objections filed by the petitioner was without signature. The absence of signatures on the objections will not give any indefeasible right to the respondents and the court below cannot pass the impugned judgment without recording its satisfaction by seeing the purport and purpose of the limitation Act, which lays stress on the point that once a right has accrued in favour of a party by effecting of time, that should not be set aside without giving the party opportunity of being heard which has not been done in the instant case. He has not decided the condonation of delay application following the mandatory procedure laid down under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC. In support of this contention, he has also cited the following case law:- i. AIR 2000 SC Page 650 ii. 2005 Allahabad High Court page 563 iii. 2009(Supp) Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar judgment page 530 iv. AIR 1998 SC 1274 Some other judgments of this Tribunal up to 2005 5. In support of this contention, he has also cited the following case law:- i. AIR 2000 SC Page 650 ii. 2005 Allahabad High Court page 563 iii. 2009(Supp) Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar judgment page 530 iv. AIR 1998 SC 1274 Some other judgments of this Tribunal up to 2005 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this revision petition has been file by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner designated as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama, by virtue of which he accepted the appeals, and set aside the mutation order Nos. 1007 and 1010 and has remanded the matter to Tehsildar Awantipora for denovo Enquiry and pass orders strictly in accordance with law which is not revisable and is always considered as interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable under law envisaged Under Section 21(2) of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The instant revision is against an order whereby the ld. Additional Deputy Commissioner designated as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama has remanded the case for denovo enquiry and pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law, meaning thereby that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama has not determined any of the rights of the parties. In order to make an order a final order, the following three conditions must be satisfied:- a. That it would not be an interlocutory order. b. Even though it is an order which dispose off the proceedings before the court finally, but it should not be an order which leaves the proceedings alive in the court below. c. That there should be final determination of rights or the order must by its own force, affect the rights of the parties. 6. The said legal position regarding the final order is fortified by the law laid down in cases reported as:- 1. AIR 1961 SC page 94. 2. AIR 1977 All Page 360 (FB) 3. JKJ 2010 (3) 752 [HC] Rashid Shiekh v. State & Ors. 7. 6. The said legal position regarding the final order is fortified by the law laid down in cases reported as:- 1. AIR 1961 SC page 94. 2. AIR 1977 All Page 360 (FB) 3. JKJ 2010 (3) 752 [HC] Rashid Shiekh v. State & Ors. 7. So on the touchstone of this legal position supra, the instant revision petition is not maintainable as the said revision is against a "Remand Order" which is not a final order and is an interlocutory order in view of fact, that none of the rights of either party was determined and the proceedings are alive before Tehsildar Awantipora for denovo enquiry and for appropriate orders. 8. Brief matrix of the case is that the appellate authority has set aside the impugned mutations and remanded the case back to the Tehsildar Awantipora for conducting the de novo enquiry into the matter within three months from the date of issue of this order. From the perusal of the impugned order mutations have been attested without jurisdiction, as the Agrarian Tehsildar has no competence to declare the petitioner herein, as tenant of the land under appeal. There exists no tenant-land lordship relation between the respondents herein and petitioner, as the petitioner is nephew of the respondents herein (sister's son) and was never the tenant of the said land. But the Tehsildar in contravention to the statutory provisions laid down under sec. 13 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 created the tenancy in the matter without following the procedure. Perusal of the record transpires that the land in question under survey No. 326 measuring 7 kanals and 4 marlas of Estate Goripora was actually purchased by the respondents by way of Sale Deed duly registered under No. 49 dated 19.04.1969 and stand implemented in the revenue records in terms of Mutation No. 1006 dated 3.11.1988 in favour of the respondents herein. The said portion of land was then mutated in favour of petitioner through mutation No. 1007 without date, Under Section 4 and mutation No. 1010 dated 15.02.1989 under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, which clearly indicates that the above said mutations have been attested in a very clandestine manner and in gross violation of Agrarian Reforms Rules. Moreover, the parties arrayed in both the appeals as per the record are close relatives to each other. Moreover, the parties arrayed in both the appeals as per the record are close relatives to each other. The order of the appellant authority is short self-explanatory because the mutations have been passed in absence of the respondents herein. In support of contention, I have laid my hand on an authority of our own Hon'ble High Court in a case [JKJ Soft JKJ/22500] Suraj Prakash v. J&K Special Tribunal, para 5 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- "The Learned Member of the J&K Special Tribunal in his order has not said anything about the admitted position of law that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be the possession of other co-sharer but has interfered with the impugned order before him on the basis that the Commissioner had entertained the time barred appeals without there being any formal application for condonation of the delay. The learned commissioner in para 10 of his order has clearly stated that the three mutations were attested in absence of the appellant therein who was not given any opportunity of being heard which was against the provisions of the law and natural justice. There was no legal bar for condoning the delay in the absence of a separate application to that effect because any mutation attested without giving any opportunity of being heard to the effected party is non-est in the eyes of law" 9. So this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is having no force in view of the above judgment also. 10. Now after the perusal of the impugned mutation I think court below has rightly held in his impugned order that there is no relation between the parties as landlord and tenant because it is clear from the mutation sheet itself. On that count also impugned mutations are result of mala-fide exercise of power by the concerned mutating officer because the petitioner herein was not shown in cultivation of the land even on mutation sheet also. When we read the condition of the mutation, it smacks something more. 11. Appellate authority has remanded the case back to Tehsildar Awantipora with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry into the matter within three months. Besides, setting aside the mutation attested earlier being illegal. So, no final order has been passed by the appellate authority. When we read the condition of the mutation, it smacks something more. 11. Appellate authority has remanded the case back to Tehsildar Awantipora with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry into the matter within three months. Besides, setting aside the mutation attested earlier being illegal. So, no final order has been passed by the appellate authority. It has been held in so many cases by our Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court as it is clearly held by this Tribunal in a case titled Sham Din and others v. Mohammad Hussain & Others as under:- "Section-21 Scope-revision against order of remand-Not revisable-Sine qua non for entertaining revision-revisional court can adjudicate upon final order passed on appeal involving the question of law or public interest and by impugned order case remanded for holding fresh enquiry and passing fresh order in presence of prominent persons and ex-owners after providing opportunity of being heard to both parties - Held, no final right of parties has been decided, and any order which does not decide any final legal right of parties is not revisable-revision dismissed since impugned order does not suffer from any legal defect." 12. From bare perusal of this section, it is evident that court can adjudicate upon revision only against final order passed in appeal by Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms that too in case the question of law or public interest is involved. So these two conditions are sine qua non for entertaining the revisions. But in the instant case, I think no order has been passed in favour of any party though mutations have been set aside on the ground that same has been attested in violation of the rules at the back of one party and case is remanded for conducting a fresh enquiry. Now the question is whether setting side the mutations is a final order in the eyes of law or not and directing the case for de novo enquiry is a final order or not. Apparently, the court below has only remanded the case to the Tehsildar concerned for conducting an enquiry as such, in terms of Section 21(2) no final order has been passed nor any right of the parties have been determined by the court below. Apparently, the court below has only remanded the case to the Tehsildar concerned for conducting an enquiry as such, in terms of Section 21(2) no final order has been passed nor any right of the parties have been determined by the court below. Viewed thus, the appellate authority has not decided the final rights of the parties but remanded back the case to the Tehsildar Awantipora for conducting fresh enquiry on spot in presence of the parties. As such, the revision petition having no merit. It is hereby dismissed. The order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Pulwama is upheld. Court below file, if called, shall be send back along with the copy of this order. File shall go to records after its due completion.