JUDGMENT : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioners against mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu, has been dismissed. 2. Issue notice to private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the first instance. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 3. With the appearance of Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate caveat stands discharged. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. By virtue of a revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Jammu, they had challenged mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011, passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu, whereby the private respondents were held entitled to the estate left behind by predecessor-in-interest of the parties, which was passed on remand of mutation No. 194. It appears that mutation No. 194 was attested in favour of Hans Raj, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, by the Naib Tehsildar, Jammu on 20.06.1984. Private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K, Jammu by way of a revision petition and the said petition was decided in terms of order dated 26.07.2011. Mutation No. 194 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Jammu, who vide mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 attested the mutation in respect of the estate left behind by Jagan Nath in favour of the private respondents. 6. It also appears that the aforesaid order of mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 of village Tikri Rakwalan, Tehsil and District Jammu was challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before Regional Director Survey and Land Records (Ex Officio Settlement Officer), with powers of Collector, Jammu on 20.10.2011 and the appeal was dismissed by the said authority vide its order date 02.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners again challenged the same mutation order bearing No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 by way a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 7. The impugned mutation order has been passed on 02.09.2011, whereas the revision petition has been filed by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner on 19.05.2022, i.e. after a period of about 11 years. 7. The impugned mutation order has been passed on 02.09.2011, whereas the revision petition has been filed by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner on 19.05.2022, i.e. after a period of about 11 years. During the course of hearing, the explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners for delayed filing of the revision petition is that the petitioners were not in knowledge of the impugned order of mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 and that no limitation period has been prescribed for filing a revision petition under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. 8. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it may be noted that the petitioners had challenged the same mutation bearing No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 by way of an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Jammu, which was instituted on 20.10.2011 and was dismissed on 02.08.2014, meaning thereby that the petitioners were in knowledge of the order of mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 as on 20.10.2011 when they filed the appeal. Therefore, there is no justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware about the mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011, which in fact they had challenged by way an appeal way back in the year 2011. 9. Coming to the contention that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the revision petition under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, in this regard, it is to be noted that although no period of limitation for filing revision petition is prescribed under the Land Revenue Act, but yet a litigant cannot come to the Court to challenge an order by way of a revision petition after a lapse of 11 years. Even though no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a revision petition under the Land Revenue Act, a party is expected to file a revision petition within a reasonable time and the reasonable time can never be 11 years. Even otherwise also, this Court in the case of Wali Mohammad Magrey and Others vs. Ali Mohammad Gujree and Others, 2022 (1) JKJ 307, has held that even if there is no limitation period as such prescribed in the Limitation Act for revision applications, normally a revision petition has to be filed within the same period as is prescribed for filing an appeal against a decree or order. 10. 10. Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu belatedly and as such, the learned Additional Commissioner, Jammu has rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu passed on mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Jammu. The writ petition lacks merits and same is dismissed accordingly. 11. It is, however, made clear that attestation of mutation in revenue record in favour of the parties are only fiscal entries and they do no confer any title on the party, in whose favour the same has been attested. It shall, therefore, be open to the petitioners to establish their title to the estate, which is subject matter of mutation No. 21 dated 02.09.2011 on the basis of the will, by filing appropriate proceedings in the civil Court. 12. Disposed of.