1 S. No. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.730/2023 CM No.1727/2023 MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH MALIK AND ORS. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Shah, GA Mr. Sheikh Umar Farooq, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 11.09.2025 (ORAL) 1. In the instant petition, petitioners herein have thrown challenge to order dated 23-02-2023 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by respondent 1 herein in the revision petition titled as “M. Abdullah Malik and Ors. Vs. Mst. Misra and Ors.,” under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act 1996. 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein being siblings-brothers and sisters inherited the estate of their father namely Qama Malik of village Larnoo and Mutation No.709, dated 09-11-1987 consequently came to be attested qua the said estate of their father qua 13 Kanals and 03 marlas of land in favour of predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein and rest of the land in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein. The said mutation No.709 came to be challenged by the predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein in an appeal before the appellate authority which consequently came to be allowed directing the concerned officer to attest a 2 fresh mutation of the estate of Qama Malik in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein and predecessor in interest of private respondents herein in equal shares, while holding that the predecessor in interest of the private respondents herein, was the Khana Nasheen Daughter of the deceased-Qama Malik thus, entitled to half of the share from the estate of Qama Malik whereafter Mutation No.1481 came to be attested consequently, whereby the estate of Qama Malik got devolved in equal shares unto the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and predecessor in interest of private respondents herein. The said Mutation No.1481, however, was called in question by the father of the petitioners herein before the appellate authority in an appeal which, however, got dismissed in default and no steps were taken for the re-admission of the said appeal whereafter the petitioners herein called in question the said mutation in the revision petition before the respondent 1 herein, inter alia, on the ground that after the death of their father, they never knew about the dismissal of the appeal filed by their father against Mutation No.709, and they came to know about the Mutation No.1481 attested in favour of the respondents of late whereafter they took steps for challenging the said Mutation. The revisional forum, however, did not agree with the contentions of the petitioners herein and consequently in terms of the impugned order dismissed the revision. 3. The petitioners herein have challenged the said order dated 23.02.2023 in the instant petition on multiple grounds. 4. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents wherein the actual position qua the attestation of initial inheritance mutation in the year 1987 is being admitted. It is also being admitted that said Mutation of the year 1987 came to be challenged by their predecessor in interest in an 3 appeal, which appeal was allowed by directing the attestation of fresh mutation qua the estate of their deceased grandfather in equal shares between the father of the petitioners herein and their mother, i.e. the mother of the respondents herein. It is, however, being stated that the said order came to be implemented in the year 2019 when mutation No.1481 was attested in the year 2019 pursuant to the orders passed by the appellate authority after the appeal filed against the said Mutation by the father of the petitioners herein came to be dismissed in default and the said Mutation No.1481 came to be attested pursuant to the order of the appellate authority passed in the appeal filed their predecessor in interest. 5. It is being also stated that the petitioners herein though have called in question Mutation No.1481 of 2019 before the revisional forum, yet did not challenge the order of the appellate authority pursuant to which the said Mutation was attested, which order in fact stands passed as far back as more than 23 years. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would reveal that indisputably Mutation of 1481 stands attested pursuant to the orders of the appellate authority being the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) upon an appeal filed by the mother of the respondents herein, wherein the mother of the respondents herein had challenged the Mutation No.709 of 1987 whereby she was divested of her share as a “Khana Nasheen Daughter” from the estate of her deceased father and while accepting the said appeal, the appellate authority concluded that being a “Khana Nasheen Daughter” she was entitled to half of the share from the estate of her deceased father along with her brother i.e. the father of the petitioners herein. 4 7. 4 7. It also emerges from the record that the petitioners herein have challenged the Mutation No.1481 of 2019 before the revisional forum on 16- 09-2020 without challenging the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), even though the said order was called in question by their father in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, which appeal got dismissed in default on 29-11-1997, and its re-admission was never sought by the petitioners herein. Since the Mutation 1481 of 2019 owes its origin to the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) which though was challenged by the father of the petitioners in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which appeal got dismissed, the said mutation in isolation could not have been challenged by the petitioners herein without throwing challenge to the said order of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) which order essentially has assumed finality and consequently thereupon the Mutation No.1481 got attested. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as that the fact of the revision petition whereunder the instant petition has arisen has been filed admittedly after a considerable period of time by the petitioners herein even without seeking condonation of delay, this Court is not inclined to display indulgence and exercise discretion. 9. Resultantly the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed long with connected application/s. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 11.09.2025 Ishaq Whether the judgement is speaking ? Yes Whether approved for reporting ? No