JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Poonch on 23.01.2023, whereby he has cancelled the mutation No.788 dated 13.01.2010 of Village Sheindara, Tehsil Haveli, holding that the same is void ab initio. The petitioners are seeking quashment of the said order precisely on the ground that the same has been passed by the respondent No.2 without having jurisdiction and without giving petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The mutation in question was attested on 13.01.2010. The respondent No. 2 has held that the mutation has been attested against the provisions of Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958. The order impugned is reproduced as under: - “UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch Sub:-Cancellation of Illegal Mutation No. 788 of Village Shiendara Whereas, Tehsildar Haveli vide his Communication No.TH/OQ/ 2402 dated 17.01.2023 has reported that in village Sheindara of Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch, Mutation No. 788 dated 13.01.2010 has been attested illegally on State land bearing Khasra No. 129 under the provisions of Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958 in favour of illegal occupants, which were not entitled to said mutation and has recommended for setting aside the same and; Whereas, Misi-e-Haqiyat (ROR) of Village Shiendara has been perused and the Khasra No. 129 has been found recorded as State land under the possession of Wazir Mohd. S/o Kalu and; Whereas, the mentioned Mutation No.788 dated 13.01.2010 for land bearing Khasra No. 129 measuring 42 Kanals and 15 Marlas has been attested in favour of Khadim Hussain, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohd. Razak, Mohd. Aslam Ss/o Mohd. Hussain equal share half and Wazir Mohd. S/o Kalu and; Whereas in the ROR 1961-62, the names of Khadim Hussain, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohd. Razaq and Mohd. Aslam or their father Mohd. Hussain do not exist as occupants of the said State Land bearing Khasra No. 129, which shows that they had no possession over the said land in 1961-62 and; Whereas Tehsildar, Haveli in his aforementioned report has also mentioned that Talib Hussain and others, sons of Wazir Mohd. are not occupants of the land bearing Khasra No. 129, but are occupants of proprietary land under Khasra Nos. are not occupants of the land bearing Khasra No. 129, but are occupants of proprietary land under Khasra Nos. 131, 133, 134 & 135 and; Whereas for attesting mutation under these Government order No. LB-6/C of 1958, the essential condition is that the land must be under the continuous possession of the beneficiary since Kharief 1957. But the aforementioned facts clearly establish that land bearing Khasra No. 129 has not been under the possession of the said beneficiaries since 1957. As such, they are not entitled for rights under Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958 for the said land. Thus, Mutation No. 788 dated 13.01.2010 has been attested against statutory provisions of law and; Whereas, U/S 21 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996 Svt., the record of rights or Misi-e-Haqiyat, prepared at the time of settlement of the estate is the Standing/Primary record of the estate. ROR is the most important record so far as evidential value is concerned. The evidential value of entries made in ROR in invariably relevant as held in case Ramanna Vs. Sambamurthy AIR 1961 AP-361 and; Whereas, the State is the owner of big chunks of land scattered throughout the District and every officer/official of the Government is duty bound to protect the same and remove encroachments therefrom and; Whereas, Para No. 104 of the Standing Order No. 23-A, Hidayat Intiqalat (Instructions for Mutations) lays down that mutations against statutory provisions are not recognized by law, as held in case titled Bawa Sewa Nand Chela Shanker Vs. State of J&K: 14.11.2006: OWP No. 515/2002: 2007 (2) JKJ HC-83 and that transfers which are not recognized by law are void and cannot be enforced by mutations, and that mutation cannot be carried out of a transaction which contravenes an express provision of the statutory law and; Whereas, a mutation does not confer any title. It is only an alteration of an entry in revenue records for its updation. The object of mutation is to bring entries in record of rights updated as held by Hon’ble High Court of J&K in case titled Rasheeda Akhtar Vs. State 2005 (II) SLJ 785, 2006 (2) KLJ 384 and; Whereas, from the foregoing paras, it is amply clear that the aforementioned mutations cannot be justified under circumstances. The object of mutation is to bring entries in record of rights updated as held by Hon’ble High Court of J&K in case titled Rasheeda Akhtar Vs. State 2005 (II) SLJ 785, 2006 (2) KLJ 384 and; Whereas, from the foregoing paras, it is amply clear that the aforementioned mutations cannot be justified under circumstances. As such, further delay on the pretext of hearing shall merely linger on the decision, as hearing will have no impact on the conclusion drawn on the basis of facts and merit. The same has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escort Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (2004) 4 Section 281, relevant para of which is reproduced as under: - “Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice, at the same time, it would be of no use if it amounts to completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits” and; Whereas, the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Jammu in WPPIL No.19/2011 & MP No. 10/2016 titled Prof. S.K. Bhalla Vs. State and ors. has also directed for removal of encroachment/ unauthorized occupation of State land and common land and any mutation attested in State land or otherwise which contravenes the statutory provisions of law cannot be allowed to continue in the revenue record. Therefore, in view of the above, the Mutation No. 788 dated 13.01.2010 of village Shiendra, Tehsil Haveli, has been attested against the provisions of the Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958, statutorily un-maintainable and cannot be recognized in view of para 104 of Standing Order 23-A; and, as such, is hereby declared as void ab-initio. Tehsildar, Haveli is directed to rectify the revenue record, accordingly, by making requisite entry in favour of State in respect of the said land and proceed for physical eviction of the encroachers. He shall also submit copy of the said mutation after implementing this order for record purpose within two weeks’ time. Assistant Commissioner (Rev.), Poonch is directed to conduct an in-depth enquiry and fix the accountability of the delinquent Officer(s)/Official(s), who have entered/attested the said Mutation within a period of one month.” 2. The petitioners’ case is that they are descendants of one-Kalu, who was in possession of the land prior to 1957. Assistant Commissioner (Rev.), Poonch is directed to conduct an in-depth enquiry and fix the accountability of the delinquent Officer(s)/Official(s), who have entered/attested the said Mutation within a period of one month.” 2. The petitioners’ case is that they are descendants of one-Kalu, who was in possession of the land prior to 1957. At the time of constitution of Settlement Commission, which worked from 1955 to 1962 and based upon the orders, their father was recorded in possession of the land in Khasra No. 129 and Missal-e-Haqqiyat was also entered in his favour. The father of the petitioner No. 1 to 3 and rest of the petitioners’ father were in continuous possession of the land. In the year, 2010, LB-6 was attested in their father. Their father had also constructed kacha house on the land. After the death of their father, their possession was recorded in the revenue records. Respondent No.2 is stated to have passed order impugned, cancelling mutation at the back of petitioners and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The order impugned has, thus, been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of inquiry conducted by Tehsildar, Haveli, vide his No.TH/OQ/2402 dated 17.01.2023, wherein it came to fore that mutation No.788 dated 13.01.2010 under Government Order No. LB-6C of 1958 has been attested in favour of the petitioners against the statutory norms. As per the Record of Rights (ROR) of 1961-62, land falling under Khasra No. 129 measuring 42 Kanals and 15 Marlas is shown as State Land under the possession of one- Wazir Mohammad S/o Kalu and the said land is in illegal possession of one-Khadim Hussain, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohammad Razzak, Mohammad Aslam Ss/o Mohammad Hussain and the mutation in question was attested in their favour in equal shares in half and Wazir Mohammad S/o Kalu in half share. The mutation was cancelled because there was no entry in the name of the sons of Mohammad Hussain and Wazir Mohammad has no possession on spot. 4. It is also stated in the objections that for a mutation to be attested under Government Order No. LB-6C of 1958, a person should be in physical possession of the land and shown as occupant since Kharief 1957. The father of the petitioner Nos. 4. It is also stated in the objections that for a mutation to be attested under Government Order No. LB-6C of 1958, a person should be in physical possession of the land and shown as occupant since Kharief 1957. The father of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 has been shown as an illegal occupant in the Record of Rights of 1961-62, but has no physical possession. Petitioner Nos.4 to 7 are in physical possession of the land, but have no entry in revenue record. The mutation was attested in favour of the petitioners against the mandate of Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958. The order impugned would reveal that the petitioners have not been given an opportunity of being heard before passing the order, which has been challenged in this petition. The respondent No. 2 while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Escort Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 , refused to provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is apparent from the order impugned that the petitioners have been denied their right of being heard before passing the order. 5. In the present case, as is clear from the order impugned, respondent No.2 has set-aside the order of mutation of Tehsildar, Haveli, without there being any application seeking its cancellation. All that is done by respondent is on the basis of the report of Tehsildar. The record as well as the order impugned itself would show that mutation in respect of the land in question was attested on 13.01.2010. 6. Similar cases have considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petitions, bearing WP(C) Nos. 2360/2021 & 2571/2021. The question, which has arisen for consideration in this case is similar to what has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in above referred to cases. In WP(C) No. 2360/2021, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua had set aside the mutation in respect of 58 Kanals of land. The issues regarding power of Deputy Commissioner to pass such orders and ramifications of denial of right of being heard was considered. The relevant paras of the judgment in WP(C) No.2360/2021 dealing with such issues are reproduced as under: - “07. In WP(C) No. 2360/2021, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua had set aside the mutation in respect of 58 Kanals of land. The issues regarding power of Deputy Commissioner to pass such orders and ramifications of denial of right of being heard was considered. The relevant paras of the judgment in WP(C) No.2360/2021 dealing with such issues are reproduced as under: - “07. If we have a look at the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939 A.D.), Section 6 of the Act classifies the Revenue Officers and these include the Financial Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, the Assistant Collector of the first class and the Assistant Collector of the second class. It also provides that the Deputy Commissioner of a District would be the Collector of a District and an Assistant Collector and a Tehsildar would be an Assistant Collector of the first class, whereas a Naib Tehsildar would be an Assistant Collector of the second class. 08. Section 11 of the J&K Land Revenue Act provides that an appeal from an order passed by the Assistant Collector of either class shall lie to the Collector; an appeal from an order passed by the Collector shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner and an appeal shall lie to the Financial Commissioner from an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 09. Section 13 of the J&K Land Revenue Act provides that a Revenue Officer has power to review his own order either of his own motion or on the application of any interested party. Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 13 of the Act postulates that while exercising the powers of review, an order cannot be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order. 10. Section 15 of the J&K Revenue Act vests powers of revision with the Financial Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner. In case, the Divisional Commissioner feels that the order against which revision petition has been filed is required to be modified or revised, he has to send a report alongwith his opinion to the Financial Commissioner. Proviso to Section 15 further lays down that in case an order is required to be reversed or modified, the same cannot done without giving to the affected person an opportunity of hearing. 11. Proviso to Section 15 further lays down that in case an order is required to be reversed or modified, the same cannot done without giving to the affected person an opportunity of hearing. 11. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 has set aside the mutation orders passed in favour of the petitioners and the said mutation orders had been passed by the Tehsildar. A Deputy Commissioner is vested with appellate powers against an order of the Tehsildar (Assistant Collector). It is not case of the respondents that an appeal against the mutation orders attested in favour of the petitioners had been filed before him. Thus, it cannot be stated that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has exercised its appellate power in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Since the orders of mutation were passed by the Tehsildar and not by the Deputy Commissioner, as such, it can also be not stated that the Deputy Commissioner has exercised his suo moto powers of review as contemplated in Section 13 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner is not vested with powers of revision in terms of Section 15 of the Act, as such, it cannot be stated that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has exercised his revisional jurisdiction. 12. The stand taken by the respondents is that respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has exercised his administrative powers. I am afraid, there is no such administrative power vested with the Deputy Commissioner that would give him jurisdiction to set aside the mutation orders passed by the Tehsildar. The power to attest a mutation as also the power to set aside the mutation, is quasi judicial in nature. The said power can never be termed as an administrative power of the Revenue Officer. This power is to be exercised by the Revenue Officers strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the J&K Land Revenue Act and that too after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party by adhering to the principles of natural justice. As has been already noted, even while reviewing its own order, a Revenue Officer has to give an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The same is the position when Divisional Commissioner or Financial Commissioner exercises his revisional powers under Section 15 of the Act. As has been already noted, even while reviewing its own order, a Revenue Officer has to give an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The same is the position when Divisional Commissioner or Financial Commissioner exercises his revisional powers under Section 15 of the Act. A Revenue Officer is obliged to adhere to the principles of natural justice before setting at naught a mutation order attested in favour of a person. 13. In the instant case, respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has adopted a novel approach by exercising powers of review in respect of the orders passed by the Tehsildar, who is a subordinate Revenue Officer. This has been done by respondent No. 2 without even putting the affected party to notice. The manner in which respondent No. 2 has proceeded to set at naught the mutation orders attested in favour of the petitioners, clearly exhibits arbitrariness on his part.” 7. This Court has also taken a similar view in WP(C) 2571/2021. In the said writ petition also, Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, declared mutation No. 301 dated 27.11.1988 under Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958 and mutation No. 344 dated 11.06.1989 under Government order No. S-432 of 1966 as void ab initio. In the said case also, the mutations, which were cancelled, were attested by Tehsildar Haveli, Poonch; as a result whereof, the ownership rights qua the land were conferred upon writ petitioners. This Court while dealing with the issues regarding the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to pass such order and impact of denial of being heard to writ petitioners before such order, was considered. While dealing with the issues, it was held that the order was in violation of principles of natural justice and also that Deputy Commissioner was not competent to review/recall the orders passed by the Revenue Officers subordinate to him and while saying so, relied upon the provisions as contained in Section 13 and 15 of the Land Revenue Act, which for the facility of reference, are extracted hereunder: - “13. Review by Revenue Officers: - (1) A Revenue Officer may, either of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm, any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors in office: Provided as follows: (a) when a Divisional Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when a Revenue Officer of a class below that of Collector proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject; (b) an application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period; (c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order; and, (d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed. (2) For purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be successor in office of any Revenue Officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer, and to whom there is no successor in office. (3) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing review or confirming on review a previous order”. “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 fit: 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.” 8. The Court in the aforesaid cases came to the conclusion that the order cancelling mutation was bad in the eye of law and, accordingly, set aside the same. 9. Having regard to the fact that the mutation, which has been cancelled and held void ab initio was attested by Tehsildar, Haveli, Poonch, vide mutation No.788 dated 13.01.2020. Respondent No.2, has on his own motion, reviewed the order of mutation and passed the impugned order, cancelling the mutation so attested without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 10. The facts of the present case are quite similar to the facts of the cases referred to above and as already held in the aforesaid judgments that exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner was bad and that the order impugned being violative of the principles of natural justice was required to be set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned dated 23.01.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 – Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, is set-aside. 12. Allowed and disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.