JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has implored for the following reliefs: (i) The judgment and order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 in file No. 649/FC-AP whereby the reference made by the respondent No. 2 has been accepted and the mutation order No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 has been set aside; (ii) The judgment and order dated 06.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 in file No. 67/Revision/2010-11 titled Mursa Begum Vs. State of J&K and ors whereby the reference for setting aside the above mutation order was made to respondent No. 1 and (iii) Restraining the respondents No. 4 to 11 from interfering in respect of the land owned and possessed by the petitioner covered by mutation order No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein are as under : (i) One Mst. Azizi, mother of the petitioner and maternal grandmother of the private respondents herein owned and possessed landed property in village Chareel Tehsil Banihal. (ii) Said Mst. Azizi, after her death, was survived by two daughters, namely, Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the mother of the private respondents herein. After the death of Mst. Azizi, her aforesaid estate came to be inherited by her above daughters in equal shares and in this regard, mutation No. 1373 dated 27.02.1979 came to be attested. (iii) Subsequent to the attestation of the mutation no. 1373 (supra), the petitioner herein claimed to be the exclusive owner of the aforesaid estate of Mst. Azizi on the ground that she was a Khana-Nisheen daughter as also on the basis of a Will claimed to have been made by Mst. Azizi in her faovur and consequently on the said ground challenged the mutation No. 1373 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban, who vide order dated 29.09.1980, set aside the mutation No. 1373 and consequently directed correction of the records while acknowledging the claim of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein over the land under estate of her mother. (iv) Mst. Mursa, the other daughter of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein over the land under estate of her mother. (iv) Mst. Mursa, the other daughter of Mst. Azizi challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in an appeal which appeal, however, came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.12.1982 whereupon mutation No. 1645 came to be attested in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein alone on 10.05.1985 qua the land under estate of her mother on the basis of order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 29.09.1980. (v) The aforesaid mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985, however, came to be challenged by Mst. Mursa before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in a revision petition which came to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in terms of order dated 06.12.2017 on the premise that even if Mst. Azizi, the mother of the petitioner herein and the maternal grandmother of the private respondents herein was competent to transfer the land under estate in favour of Mst Hajra, the petitioner herein, she could have transferred only her own share as the land under estate was inherited property and not self acquired property and, therefore, Mst. Azizi could not have deprived Mst. Mursa of her share in the property and that even though Mst. Mursa has challenged the mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 and did not challenge the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980, yet having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter needs to be remanded to the Tehsildar, Banihal for passing fresh order while setting aside the order dated 29.09.1980 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban. (vi) The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu while deciding the said revision petition on 06.12.2017 made a reference in terms of Section 15(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1939 AD to the Financial Commissioner (R), Jammu for the confirmation of the order consequent to which the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu in terms of order dated 16.01.2019 confirmed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 06.12.2017 and endorsed the direction of remand of the case to the Tehsildar concerned for attestation of a fresh mutation. (vii) The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu while passing the order dated 16.01.2019 also noticed, observed and concluded that Mst. (vii) The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu while passing the order dated 16.01.2019 also noticed, observed and concluded that Mst. Azizi had inherited the landed property in question along with her brother, namely, Lassu from their father, namely, Rehman Lone and after the death of Rehman Lona, his estate had got devolved upon Lassu and Mst. Azizi in the ratio of 2:1 strictly in accordance with the law of inheritance under Muslim Personal Law. The Financial Commissioner, Jammu, thus, opined that in the matter of succession, the parties were governed by Shariat/inheritance law of muslims and not by customary law and, therefore, the exclusive claim of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein over the land under estate as being a Khana-Nisheen daughter is not tenable as the family is governed by Shariat/inheritance law in matters of succession as the concept of Khana Nisheen daughter, which was under customary law, has been done away after coming into being of the Shariat Act, 2007. (viii) The Financial Commissioner, Jammu while passing the order dated 16.01.2019 have had taken cognizance of another fact that Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein had also lodged exclusive claim over the land under estate of her mother Mst. Azizi on the basis of a Will which Will was never brought on record and otherwise even if was in existence could not have been enforced under Muslim Personal Law beyond the share of 1/3rd. (ix) The Financial Commissioner, Jammu in the order dated 16.01.2019 also took into consideration the plea of limitation raised by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein qua the revision petition filed by Mst. Mursa, the predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and opined that the mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 had been attested in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein in absence of Mst. Mursa who was condemned unheard, therefore, the plea of limitation raised by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein becomes irrelevant and also that the officer who attested the mutation No. 1645 had been the Naib Tehsildar (Assistant Collector IInd Class) and in terms of para 29 of the Standing Order 23-A attestation of mutations is prohibited by the Assistant Collector IInd Class concerning a Khana Nisheen daughter unless said officer is specifically empowered by Financial Commissioner, Revenue. (x) The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu while confirming the order dated 16.01.2019 opined that though the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980 is not under challenge, yet the illegality committed in the matter by attestation of mutation No. 1645 cannot be permitted to continue having been perpetuated by defeating the purpose of justice and thus consequently, concurred with the suo moto revisional power exercised by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu qua the order dated 29.09.1980 not being under challenge. (xi) The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Jammu, thus, while summing up the order dated 16.01.2019 accepted the reference and consequently set aside the mutation No. 1645 attested by the Naib Tehsildar in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and endorsed the direction of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for remanding the case to the Tehsildar concerned for attestation of fresh mutation in accordance with law and the procedure laid down in the Standing Order 23- A. 3. The petitioner has questioned both the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as also the order of the Financial Commissioner, Jammu dated 06.12.2017 and 16.01.2019 respectively in the instant petition on multiple grounds including the one that the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as also the Financial Commissioner, Jammu have had no power to set aside the order dated 29.09.1980 as the same was not under challenge and that the same had become final between the parties and in absence of any challenge to the said order, the mutation No. 1645 attested in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein on the basis of the Will made in her favour and also as being a Khana Nisheen daughter could not have been set aside more so after a considerable period of time at the instance of Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein in the revision petition admittedly hopelessly time barred. 4. Objections have been filed to the petition by the private respondents wherein it is being admitted that Mst. Azizi succeeded her father Rehman Lone and said Mst. Azizi after her death came to be succeeded by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein as also Mst. Musra, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein and the land under estate left behind by Mst. Azizi, upon her death, came to be devolved upon Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein as also Mst. Azizi succeeded her father Rehman Lone and said Mst. Azizi after her death came to be succeeded by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein as also Mst. Musra, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein and the land under estate left behind by Mst. Azizi, upon her death, came to be devolved upon Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein as also Mst. Musra, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein in equal shares and consequently inheritance mutation no. 1373 came to be attested. 5. It is being also stated that since mutation No. 1373 dated 30.05.1979 had been attested in presence of both Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Musra, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein, the said mutation could not have been challenged by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein on any grounds, be it on the ground of her being as a Khana Nisheen daughter or else on the basis of a Will and that for the said reason, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban could not have entertained the challenge thrown to mutation No. 1373 by the petitioner herein and passed order dated 29.09.1980 and since the said order was passed against facts and law, Mst. Musra, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein rightly challenged the same before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu by way of an appeal which appeal, however, got dismissed in default on 17.12.1982 and no decision on merits was rendered in the said appeal. 6. It is being further stated that after the dismissal of the appeal in default, Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein by misrepresentation and at the back of Mst. Mursa got mutation No. 1645 attested in respect of the land under estate of Mst. Azizi in her favour alone though there was no direction passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban in the order dated 29.09.1980 for attestation of mutation in favour of Mst. Hajra. 7. It is being further stated that after acquiring knowledge of the attestation of the exparte mutation No. 1645, Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein preferred revision petition against the said mutation before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and therein brought into the notice of the Divisional Commissioner the fact of earlier challenge thrown to order dated 29.09.1980 by filing an application, which application came to be allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 8. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein preferred revision petition against the said mutation before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and therein brought into the notice of the Divisional Commissioner the fact of earlier challenge thrown to order dated 29.09.1980 by filing an application, which application came to be allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 8. It is being further stated that during the pendency of the revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein died and the private respondents being her legal heirs came to be substituted in her place in the revision petition whereafter the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu passed order dated 06.12.2017 and allowed the revision petition while setting aside mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 as also the order dated 29.09.1980 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned for attestation of the fresh mutation in accordance with law and thereafter upon reference made by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu as well concurred with the said order in terms of the order dated 16.01.2019. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute between the petitioner and mother of the private respondents herein succeeded Mst. Azizi, who, in turn along with Lassu her brother, had succeeded Rehman Lone, their father. 10. It is also not in dispute that the estate of Rehman Lone devolved upon Lassu, his son and Mst. Azizi, his daughter in the ratio of 2:1. It is also not in dispute that Mst. Azizi had no son but only two daughters, namely, Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein. 11. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of Mst. Azizi, Mutation No. 1373 came to be attested in respect of her estate in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein in equal shares, which mutation No. 1373 had been attested on 30.05.1979 in presence of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein as also in presence of Choudhary Noor Alam, Member Panchayat, Khawaja Samad Shah, Member Panchayat, Abdullah S/o Azeem Gujjar, Ahmed Beigh, Village Chowkidar and Sikender Khan. A closer examination of the said mutation reveals that Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein as also in presence of Choudhary Noor Alam, Member Panchayat, Khawaja Samad Shah, Member Panchayat, Abdullah S/o Azeem Gujjar, Ahmed Beigh, Village Chowkidar and Sikender Khan. A closer examination of the said mutation reveals that Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein had made a statement in presence of the above named persons that their mother Mst. Azizi had died approximately one and half years before and that said Mst. Azizi had no male child but only two daughters being Mst. Hajra, the petitioners herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein and that Mst. Hajra is presently residing in the house of Mst. Azizi and that mutation be attested and the persons who were present at the time of attestation of said mutation No. 1373 also endorsed the statement made by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein and consequently it came to be provided that an inheritance mutation is attested qua the estate of Mst. Azizi covered under Khewat No. 184 in the name of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein in equal shares. 12. Perusal of the record would further reveal that the aforesaid mutation No. 1373 dated 30.05.1979 came to be called in question by Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein on 07.09.1979 in an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban on the ground that the mutation had been attested by an incompetent person i.e., Naib Tehsildar, Banihal who did not consider the Will produced by her whereby she had become the owner of the estate of Mst. Azizi being a Khana Nisheen daughter of Mst. Azizi, thus, entitling her alone to the property of Mst. Azizi. 13. Perusal of the record would reveal that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban allowed the said appeal in terms of order dated 29.09.1980 fundamentally on the premise that Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein has been residing with her mother Mst. Azizi and that the said fact had been endorsed by the other witnesses present at the time of attestation of mutation No. 1373 and that as such, Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein was a Khana Nisheen daughter of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein has been residing with her mother Mst. Azizi and that the said fact had been endorsed by the other witnesses present at the time of attestation of mutation No. 1373 and that as such, Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein was a Khana Nisheen daughter of Mst. Azizi making her entitled exclusively to the property of Mst. Azizi and that Mst. Azizi was competent to make a Will of the property in favour of her Khana Nisheen daughter Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban thus, consequently on the said basis set aside the mutation No. 1373 and ordered correction of the records. 14. Further Perusal of the record would reveal that indisputably Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980 in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu which appeal, however, got dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1982 whereafter subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 came to be attested by the Naib Tehsildar, Banihal qua the land under estate of Mst. Azizi in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein alone which mutation admittedly came to be called in question by Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein in the revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 12.03.2010 whereupon the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2017. 15. A deeper and closer examination of the mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 would manifestly show that Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein was not present at the time of attestation of the said mutation and the said mutation have had been attested admittedly in her absence. 16. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu while passing the order dated 06.12.2017 has been alive to the fact that mutation No. 1373 initially came to be attested in favour of Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein as also Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein on 27.02.1979 qua the land under estate of Mst. Azizi in their presence and in equal shares. It is significant to note here that a bare perusal of the said mutation No. 1373 reveals that Mst Hajra, the petitioner herein at the time of its attestation did not lodge an exclusive claim over the estate of Mst. Azizi in their presence and in equal shares. It is significant to note here that a bare perusal of the said mutation No. 1373 reveals that Mst Hajra, the petitioner herein at the time of its attestation did not lodge an exclusive claim over the estate of Mst. Azizi, but instead had made a statement that Mst. Azizi is succeeded by her and Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein though having stated that she after the death of her mother has been residing in the house of her mother, but even had never contended that she is a Khana Nisheen daughter. Though prior to the attestation of the said mutation No. 1373 dated 30.05.1979, during the inheritance proceedings undertaken on 21.12.1978, it appears from the record that Mst. Hajra, the petitioner herein had made a statement before the Naib Tehsildar, Banihal that Mst. Azizi has died one and half year before and that she is the only alive daughter of the deceased and that besides her she has a sister, namely, Mst Mursa who is married as Khana Beerun daughter (married outside her material house) and that she the petitioner had also been married as a Khana Bureen daughter but when her husband Ali got missing, she re-married one Akbar Butt and is now residing with her mother in her house. In the said statement as well, the petitioner Mst. Hajra nowhere contended that she was married as a Khana Nisheen daughter of Mst. Azizi. 17. Perusal of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980 ironically reveals that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban had overlooked the said inheritance mutation proceedings and surprisingly referred to and relied upon the statement made by the petitioner Mst Hajra that she is living in the house of her deceased mother which fact had been endorsed by the witnesses who were present at the time of attestation of mutation and thereupon proceeded to conclude that the petitioner is a Khana Nisheen daughter on the basis of said statement and in clear breach of law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as “Mst. Saja Vs. Saja Vs. Ahad Sheikh and others” reported in Jammu & Kashmir Law Reports Samvat 2007 (April-June 1950) page 194, wherein it has been ruled and held that it is the father and father alone who can make his daughter a khana nisheen daughter and any extension of this custom by which a mother too can make her daughter khana nisheen daughter after her father’s death would be a further encroachment on the pure Mohammadan Law by which succession and inheritance are to be governed. It is noteworthy that insofar as the institution of Khana Nisheen daughter is concerned, same has been a custom prevalent in Kashmir whereby a man who is desirous of keeping his daughter in his own house even after her marriage, associates with him in his life time the husband of such a daughter, who resides with him becomes a member of his family and under the said custom, a Khana Nisheen daughter inherits share of a son. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban while recording such a finding qua the petitioner herein being a Khana Nisheen has patently committed an illegality and in the process wrongly and illegally set aside the mutation No. 1373 which mutation have had been attested in presence of the petitioner herein as also her sister Mst Mursa wherein admittedly the petitioner and Mst. Mursa have had in explicit terms made a statement that they are the successors in interest of Mst. Azizi who had died one and half year before and that said Mst. Azizi had no male child which statements stand endorsed by others present at that time, thus having resulted into attestation of mutation No. 1373. 18. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu has rightly taken cognizance of the said fact and while deciding the revision petition of Mst. Mursa, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents herein noticed the illegality committed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban in the order dated 29.09.1980 as also the fact that the said mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 have had been attested in absence of Mst. Mursa, validly set aside both order dated 29.09.1980 as also the mutation No. 1645 and rightly remanded the matter back to Tehsildar Banihal for passing fresh orders. 19. Mursa, validly set aside both order dated 29.09.1980 as also the mutation No. 1645 and rightly remanded the matter back to Tehsildar Banihal for passing fresh orders. 19. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) as well upon receipt of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 06.12.2017 under reference not only appropriately considered the facts of the case, the observations made by the Divisional Commissioner, but also the fact that mutation No. 1645 dated 10.05.1985 have had been attested by an incompetent officer in breach of para 29 of the Standing Order 23-A and, as such, rightly concluded that notwithstanding no challenge thrown to the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban dated 29.09.1980 by Mst Mursa and taking cognizance of the fact that the said order, in fact, have had been challenged by Mst. Mursa in an appeal which appeal got dismissed in default, validly concurred with the revisional power exercised by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in this regard that the said order had been passed illegally having perpetuated and defeated the justice. 20. It is significant to note here that the revisional power as contained in Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 is exerciseable both by the Divisional Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner both suo moto as well as upon being invoked by a party subject to a rider that in the event of order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private parties, the parties have to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, the revisional power has been exercised suo moto by the Divisional Commissioner and said suo moto power in law is exerciseable at any point of time so as to modify/revise any proceeding or order which is in contravention and inconsistent with the object for setting the revenue records right so as to prevent any mischief and miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter as well, the contention of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner ought not to have exercised revisional power and set aside order dated 29.09.1980 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban without having thrown challenge to by Mst. In this view of the matter as well, the contention of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner ought not to have exercised revisional power and set aside order dated 29.09.1980 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramban without having thrown challenge to by Mst. Mursa, the predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein, thus, is not tenable and is not potent enough to dislodge the aforesaid legal position qua the revisional power available to both the Divisional Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner. 21. Viewed thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as also Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu while passing the impugned orders dated 06.12.2017 and 16.01.2019 respectively cannot be said to have faulted and the said orders being concurrent in nature and character cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications.