Sr. No. 05 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA 35/2025 in[OWP 584/2018] CM(975/2025) MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND ANR …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Gash Asrar Ul Haq, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants who are aggrieved by the order dated 10-02-2025 by which the writ petition bearing OWP No. 584/ 2018 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: 3. One Shaban Ganie, who is the father of the appellants and the respondent no. 3 herein, passed away leaving his landed estate in village Jawalapora, Budgam. While the appellants had stated that both the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 3 (as before the learned Single Judge) were major at the time of their father's death, the petitioner no. 2 (before the learned Single) Judge is stated to have been minor at the relevant point of time. 4. Mutation No. 804 was attested in the year 1986 by which the estate of the deceased Shaban Ganie was entered only in favour of the appellants herein and had excluded the respondent no.3 in the appeal. The said Mutation No. 804 was, subsequently, followed by Mutation No. 929 in terms of which the petitioner no. 2 before the learned Single Judge surrendered her share inherited from her father in favour of the appellant No. 01 herein. 5. The respondent No. 3 before this Court, who felt aggrieved by Mutation Nos. 804 and 929, filed a revision petition before the respondent No. 1 in the appeal, stating that she, along with appellant Nos. 1 and 2, succeeded her father, Shaban Ganie, and therefore she was entitled to a share of the estate left behind by her father, and that she was illegally excluded when attestation of Mutation No. 804 was made in favor of the appellants herein and, therefore, the outcome of Mutation Nos. 804 and 929 were not legally sustainable. 6. Before the learned Single Judge, the plea of limitation was raised by the appellants herein. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Mutation was challenged after a period of more than 35 years, and that the delay was not taken into account by the revenue authority before setting aside the Mutation. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the said contention, relying upon a judgment passed by this Court in “Akhtara v. State and J&K and Ors”. 7. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge held that the order impugned setting aside the Mutation was essentially an order of remand requiring the officer concerned to attest fresh mutations in accordance with Muslim personal law, as well as the procedure laid down by the Standing Order 23-A, and that the appellants before this Court will have an ample opportunity to project their case and claim against the respondent No. 3 herein before the attesting officer. Observing thus, the petition was disposed of. 8. Indisputably, the case of the appellants would now be attested afresh before the attesting officer in accordance with the procedure laid down under Standing Order 23-A. This appeal can, therefore, be disposed of with the direction to the attesting officer to consider the claim of the appellants herein with regard to the delay of over 35 years and the fact that the appellants have been in continuous possession of the said land for all these years, as so stated by learned counsel for the appellants. 9. While considering this aspect of the case, the attesting officer shall not be influenced either by the order passed by the learned Single Judge or the order passed by this Court and shall strictly act in accordance with the law and facts of the case. 10. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.03.2025 Aamir Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2025 16:11