SUBH RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-legal heirs of Mr. Subh Ram have challenged judgment dated 11th June, 2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5620/1998 dismissing their writ petition questioning the order dated 10th August, 1998 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 10th September, 1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner. By the said order application of the appellants for cancellation of mutation on inheritance in respect of 1/9th share in Khata No. 371 in village Tikri Kalan, Tehsil Najafgarh in the names of Mr. Sarvashri Raj Singh, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Satyawan and Mr. Satpal Singh, all sons of late Ms. Bharto was rejected. The said mutation in the name of sons of late Ms. Bharto was made by the Tehsildar on 11th August, 1995.

(2.) The appellants herein are legal heirs of Mr. Subh Ram and grandsons of late Mr. Harphool Singh, who expired in 1964. He was a joint bhumidar in land in Khata No. 371 in village Tikri Kalan, Tehsil Najafgarh. After Mr. Harphool Singh's death in 1964 the aforesaid land was mutated in 1966 in the names of his sons, Mr. Subh Ram, Mr. Jai Karan and daughter-Ms. Bharto, who were described as 1/3rd owners of the land with 2/3rd share belonging to other joint bhumidars remaining unchanged. In other words, Mr. Subh Ram, Mr. Jai Karan and Ms. Bharto became 1/9th owners/joint bhumidars of the aforesaid land after death of Mr. Harphool Singh. The mutation in favour of Ms.Bharto in 1966 remained unchallenged during her life time and on her death on 14th August, 1986 her rights were transferred and inherited by her four sons-Mr. Sarvashri Raj Singh, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Satyawan and Mr. Satpal Singh. They applied for mutation and the said application was allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 11th August, 1995.

(3.) Mutation in favour of sons of Ms. Bharto was challenged by the appellants herein in the year 1998, but rejected by the impugned orders dated 10th August, 1998 and 10th September, 1998 by the Tehsildar and the Financial Commissioner, respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned orders on the ground that they are contrary to Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as DLRA, for short) under which inheritance of agricultural land is by male members and that a married daughter is excluded. It was also submitted that mutation by itself does not decide question of title or create title and that it is only an evidence of title. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions in support of the aforesaid submissions, Ram Mehar versus Smt. Dakhan reported in 1973 RLR 279(para 21), Om Prakash and Anr. versus Mansa and Others. reported in 1959 PLJ 125 (para 3), Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel versus Vithal Bhai Jay Chand Bhai Patel reported in 1996 (6) SCC 433 (para 7), Ashok Bansal and Ors. versus Gurdas and Anr. reported in 2002 (81) PLR 804 (para 9), Mahila Bajrangi versus Badribai and Anr. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 464 (para 6), Balwant N Viswamitra and Ors. versus Yadav Sadashiv Mule reported in 2004 (5) AD 172 (para 10 to 15), Sushil Kumar Mehta versus Gobind Ram Bohra reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 (para 26), Shri Krishna versus The Kurukshetra University reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (para 9), Sitaram Motilal Kalal versus Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt and Ors. reported in 1966 ACJ 89, Kiran Singh and Ors. versus Chaman Paswan and Ors. reported in 1955 SCR 117, Kanswar Sain versus Financial Commissioner W.P. (c) No. 1173 of 1980 (09/12/2004). The principles of law are well settled and established. The question is applicability of the said principles in and to the facts of the present case.