JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of the instant petition fled under Article 226, the petitioner has thrown challenge to order dated 28th of January 2021 passed by Respondent 1, whereby the revision petition fled by the petitioner against mutation Order No. 423, dated 8th of October 1997, came to be dismissed. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been fled, would reveal that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the private respondents herein being their father, left behind a landed estate situated at Chandpora, Srinagar. 3. The Tehsildar concerned is stated to have attested the mutation supra in respect of the said landed estate in favour of Private Respondents 2 to 4, excluding the petitioner and two other legal heirs. 4. It is being stated that upon coming to know about the attestation of the said mutation, the petitioner approached the official respondents in the year 2017 and brought into their notice the fact of her exclusion there from and a copy of the communication in this regard is stated to have been addressed by Tehsildar North, Srinagar, dated 21st of August 2017 to the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, is placed on record and upon their failure to consider her claim, the said mutation consequently is stated to have been challenged before Respondent 1. 5. The impugned order in terms whereof the revision petition of the petitioner herein came to be dismissed by the Respondent 1 is being assailed inter alia on the grounds that the Respondent 1 though had been oblivious to the fact that no period of limitation is prescribed for fling of a revision petition, yet dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, overlooking the law laid down by this Court in case titled as "Baboo Ram vs. The Financial Commissioner and Ors., reported in "JKLR 1972 41"inasmuch as in case titled as "Jan Mohammad vs. Revenue Minister & Ors." reported in "1975 KLJ 11" and followed by judgment passed in case titled as "Smt. Bishno Devi vs. State" reported in "2001 SLJ 86." It is being further urged in the grounds that the Respondent 1 while considering the revision petition of the petitioner, committed jurisdictional error, having failed to exercise jurisdiction bestowed upon him in terms of Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act. It is being further urged that the Financial Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner on technical ground of limitation, overlooked the contention raised by the petitioner qua attestation of the mutation in question fraudulently, whereby the petitioner being sister of the Respondents 2 to 4 in whose favour, mutation have had been attested, came to be excluded from inheriting the property of her father, without any lawful justification. It is being also urged in the grounds that the Financial Commissioner also did not consider the fact that the mutation in question had been attested in the year 1997, when the petitioner have had migrated from the valley and had no knowledge and information about the attestation of the said mutation, which had been attested in collusion of the private respondents with the official respondents and in violation of the law in place. It is further being urged in the grounds that the Respondent 1 ought to have taken note of all the facts and displayed indulgence, particularly in view of the fact of fraud committed by the revenue officers in collusion with the private respondents while attesting the mutation in question and condoned the delay having occurred in fling of the revision petition, more so, in view of the legal position that no limitation period is prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for fling a revision petition. The Respondent 1 thus in the process, is alleged to have committed grave illegality and impropriety while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. 6. Objections to the petition have been fled by the Respondents 2 to 5, wherein the contentions raised and the grounds urged in the petition, are being resisted and controverted on the premise that the petitioner have had knowledge about the attestation of mutation in question and yet the revision petition came to be fled by the petitioner after a lapse of more than 31 years. In the objections, though it is being admitted that the petitioner being sister of the answering respondents, yet it is being contended that the petitioner have had relinquished her claim, share and interest in the property of her father voluntarily which fact have had been concealed and suppressed while throwing challenge to the mutation in question. In the objections, though it is being admitted that the petitioner being sister of the answering respondents, yet it is being contended that the petitioner have had relinquished her claim, share and interest in the property of her father voluntarily which fact have had been concealed and suppressed while throwing challenge to the mutation in question. It is being further stated in the objections that the order under challenge in the petition has been passed by Respondent 1 validly and legally and that there is no flaw or illegality committed by Respondent 1 therein. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before proceeding to advert to the issues involved in the case, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996 which reads as under: 15. Power to revise orders: (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer under his control. (2) The Divisional Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. (3) If in any case in which, the Divisional Commissioner has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or revised he shall report case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) The Financial Commissioner may, in any case called for by him under sub-section (1) or reported to him under sub-section (3), pass such order as he thinks ft: Provided that, he shall not under this Section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard.] Section 12 of the Act being relevant and germane herein, reads as under: 12. Limitation for appeals, revisions and reviews. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the period of limitation for an appeal under the last foregoing Section shall be as follows:- (a) When the appeal lies to the Collector or an Assistant Collector of the first class. ... 60 days: (b) When the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner ... (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the period of limitation for an appeal under the last foregoing Section shall be as follows:- (a) When the appeal lies to the Collector or an Assistant Collector of the first class. ... 60 days: (b) When the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner ... 90 days: Provided that, in the Districts of Ladakh and Gilgit twice the ordinary period of limitation for appeals under this Section shall be allowed. (2) Such provisions of the Limitation Act as apply to appeals, applications for revision and review in civil suits shall also apply to appeals, applications for revision and review under this Act. Though Section 12 supra refers to the limitation for the appeals, revisions and reviews, yet in the body of the Section, no reference to revision is made. Thus, even if it is assumed that no period of limitation is prescribed to invoke revisional power under section 15 of the Act, yet law in this regard is no more res integra and stands already settled by a long line of decisions passed by the Apex Court as well as this Court. This Court in case titled "Ayoub Gojar & Others vs Financial Commissioner Revenue & Others" reported in " 2018 (4) JKJ 395 [HC]" has dealt with the issue extensively while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case titled as "Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao & others, reported in " (2015) 3 SCC 695 " wherein at Para 31, following has been observed: "31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercised of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statue that vests such power in an authority." 8. Reverting back to the issue/s involved in the instant petition, indisputably the petitioner had the knowledge about the mutation in question in the year 2017 itself. A perusal of the record of the proceedings would reveal that that the petitioner has nowhere explained as to what prevented her from questioning the said mutation having admittedly been attested in the year 1997, immediately after acquiring knowledge about the same in 2017, in the revisional jurisdiction before Respondent 1, which revisional jurisdiction has been invoked on 25th of November 2020 i.e. after more than period of three years. The conduct of the petitioner cannot but said to be callous, remiss and slack, as the petitioner has consciously delayed the fling of the revision petition from the year 2017. Thus, this Court has no reason not to follow the dictum of the judgment passed by this Court in case titled "Ayoub Gojar & Others" supra, wherein it has been provided that, "a person who is slack, callous and remiss in rolling the law in his favour at the opportune time, can do so after a great deal of time subject to his whims and caprices and if such a situation is allowed to prevail, it will open a food gate for uncalled litigations which cannot be controlled by the authorities while hearing and determining the revisions. Such a view, that a person fling a revision can do so at his will at any moment of time without spelling out reason as to why he waited for pursuing the action for such a long time which did not meet the test of reasonability, will lead to disastrous consequences." 9. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position inasmuch as facts and circumstances emerging from the case, no illegality is found in the order passed by the Respondent 1. The petition thus entails dismissal and, is accordingly dismissed.