Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Financial Commissioner's order upholding mutation of agricultural land in favor of a beneficiary under a registered Will. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding revenue officers are bound by the registered Will.
Writ petition dismissed; applications disposed of; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 10th May, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
JUDGMENT
I. S. MEHTA, J.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
validity of order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner in Case No. 109/09-CA.
With the passage of growing age, Sewa Ram did not wish to put Respondent No.1 into difficult situation after receiving consideration amount and he executed a registered Will in favour of respondent No.1 on 11.03.1974.
Later Sewa Ram died on 19.12.1976 leaving behind 3 sons namely Pehlad Anand P-4, Sudershan Kumar Anand P-5, Sita Ram Anand P-6 and two sons of late Surender Anand namely Mahesh Chand Anand P-7 and Sanjeev Anand P-8. The petitioner No.4 to 8 who were successors of Late Sewa Ram did not took any step for mutating the aforesaid land in their favour. In the year 2008, after a gap of 32 years, they moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar and consequential mutation of Khasra Nos. 45/18 (4-9), 23
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
(1-0), 22 (1-12), 47/3 (1-3), 48/16 (4-9), 17 (4-16), 18 (4-16) 22 Min (2-8) and 23 Min (3-17) total measuring 28 bighas 10 biswas mutated in favour of the Petitioner No.4 to 8 at the back of the Respondent No.1. In the same year, Respondent No.1 came to know that mutation got effected in favour of the Petitioner No. 4 to 8 and he moved application for cancellation of mutation before the Teshildar on the basis of registered Will and other documents. The Tehsildar reviewed its earlier order dated 19.03.2008 and subsequent mutation of Khasra Nos. 45/18 (4-9), 23 (1-0), 22 (1-12), 47/3 (0-17), 48/16 (4-9), 17 (416), 18 (4-16) 22 Min (2-8) and 23 Min (3-17) total measuring 28 bighas 10 biswas made on the basis of registered Will in favour of Kishori Lal R-1. Later, Respondent No.1 came to know that Petitioner No.4 to 8 sold 9 Bighas and 5 biswas land comprising khasra No.48/16 (4-9) and 17 (4-16) to petitioner No.1 to 3 for valuable consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs, through Sale Deed duly registered with the sub-Registrar on 03.04.2008.
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
Petitioner No.1 to 3. He further submitted that finding of the Ld. Financial Commissioner is against the law and facts on record and placed his reliance on Swaran Kaur and others v. Ld. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others , 2016 SCC Online P&H 10790.
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
Page 6 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
the validity of the said Will before the concerned Civil Court. The Will in question is a registered Will, as such, the title of the land in question passes with the registered Will. The onus of Will in question, not being genuine, lies with petitioners and it is for the petitioner to challenge the same before a competent Civil Court as per the Law.
vii. The mutation in favour of the Petitioner No.4 to 8 and consequential sale in favour of Petitioner No.1 to 3, no good title passes in presence of Registered Will dated 11.03.1974. Petitioner No.1 to 3 gets into the shoes of Petitioner No. 4 to 8.
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
MAY 10, 2019
Page 8 of 8
W.P.(C) 7554/2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Financial Commissioner's order upholding mutation in favor of the Will beneficiary.
Whether revenue courts can determine the validity of a registered Will despite the presence of contrary mutation entries.
Whether the Tehsildar exceeded jurisdiction in reviewing his own order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swaran Kaur and others v. Ld. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and othersDistinguished¶38
Swaran Kaur and others v. Ld. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2016 SCC Online P&H 10790 · Who else cites this
Suraj Bhan and Others v. Financial Commissioner and OthersRelied on¶54
Suraj Bhan and Others v. Financial Commissioner and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 186 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravinder Kumar
Kishori Lal
I. S. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
