http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1971 of 2007

PETITIONER: SURAJ BHAN & ORS

RESPONDENT: FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2007

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        1971       OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 7688-7689 OF 2004

C.K. THAKKER, J.

Leave granted.

The present appeal arises out of judgment and order  passed by the High Court of Delhi on April 25, 2003 in  Civil Writ No. 4560 of 1998. By the said order, the High  Court confirmed the order passed by Revenue Authorities  by which the name of respondent No. 5 was mutated in  the Revenue Records. Shortly stated the facts are that one Data Ram was  the common ancestor of the appellants as also  respondent No. 5.  He was the owner of agricultural land  admeasuring 216 Bighas and 19 Biswas comprised of  several Khasra numbers, situated in the Revenue Estate  of village Bawana, Delhi. Data Ram died in the year  1948.  He was survived by six sons and two daughters;  three sons and one daughter from the first wife and three  sons and one daughter from the second wife.  Ratni Devi  was a daughter from the second wife.   After the death of  Data Ram, the land was mutated in the names of his  eight children and each of them was given 1/8th share.   In 1987, two sons of Data Ram, namely, (i) Bhagwana,  and (ii) Hari Singh instituted a suit No. 81/87 for  declaration and permanent injunction averring therein  that two daughters of deceased Data Ram, namely, (i)  Smt. Jee Kaur, and (ii) Smt. Ratni Devi had no right in  the land and they could not have inherited any share in  the land since they were already married.  The suit was  ultimately compromised.  Names of the appellants were  added as legal heirs of Ratni Devi who died on June 14,  1989.  It is alleged by the appellants that respondent No.  5 forged a Will purported to have been executed by Ratni  Devi on April 14, 1989 stating therein that she was the  full and absolute owner of 1/8th share which she  inherited from her father Data Ram and that she had  given the said share to respondent No. 5 who was her  step-brother’s son. On the basis of the above Will,  respondent No. 5 applied to Tehsildar, Narela, Delhi  under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 to mutate the  land said to have been owned by deceased Ratni Devi in  the name of respondent No. 5 and to enter his name in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the Revenue Records. No notice was given to the  appellants, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, nor  principles of natural justice were complied with and  Tehsildar entered the name of respondent No. 5 in  Revenue Records by effecting mutation in the name of  respondent No. 5 in khatauni on March 19, 1997. As  soon as the appellants came to know about the fact of  mutation entry in Revenue Records in favour of  respondent No. 5, they preferred an appeal to Collector,  North District, Kanjhawala, Delhi.  The appeal, however,  was dismissed. A further appeal before the Financial  Commissioner, Delhi also met with the same fate. A Writ  Petition to the High Court of Delhi being C.W.P. No. 4560  of 1998 was, therefore, filed by the appellants.  It was  also dismissed as observed earlier, against which the  appellants have approached this Court. It was also the case of the appellants that in 1997- 98, certain lands were acquired by the Government  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award No.  1 of 1997 was passed for Rs.3,60,00,000/-. Being heirs  of deceased Ratni Devi, the appellants herein made an  application under Sections 29-31 of the said Act  asserting that they were the real heirs of deceased Ratni  Devi and were entitled to compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs,  being the share of the deceased. In spite of the above  facts, substantial amount of Rs.45 lacs had been paid to  the respondent No. 5 on March 23, 1998. The said action  was also illegal and unlawful. It is asserted by the appellants that on April 22,  1998, the appellants instituted a suit challenging validity  and genuineness of the Will alleged to have been  executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of respondent  No. 5.  The appellants, however, came to know that  advocate Satbir Singh Gulia, who was engaged by the  appellants and instructed to file a suit had not filed such  suit for cancellation of Will.  Hence, the appellants filed  another suit being Civil Suit No. 79 of 2002. The said  suit, however, was dismissed on the ground of limitation.  Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal  has been instituted by the appellants which is pending in  the High Court of Delhi. According to the appellants, all  actions are taken contrary to law by respondent No. 5  and the orders passed by the Authorities were violative of  principles of natural justice and fair play.  The High  Court had also committed an error of law in dismissing  the writ petition. They had also made complaint against  the conduct on the part of advocate Satbir Singh Gulia  and filed a complaint in the Bar Council of Delhi for his  misconduct.  The appellants, therefore, have prayed that  appropriate order be passed by this Court setting aside  the orders passed by the Authorities by deleting the  name of respondent No. 5 which had been wrongfully  entered in Record of Rights, by directing the Authorities  to afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants and to  take appropriate action in accordance with law.  A prayer  is also made to order respondent No. 5 to deposit the  entire amount received by him under the award with  interest. On April 1, 2004, when the matter was placed for  admission hearing, limited notice was issued on the  question "whether the original mutation was done upon  notice to the natural heirs of Smt. Ratni Devi, the alleged  testatrix". The matter was, thereafter, ordered to be  placed for final hearing. Affidavits and further affidavits  were filed. On December 9, 2005, notice was also issued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to the Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi to state whether  any complaint was filed by the complainant before the  Bar Council and the status of that complaint. On  February 17, 2006, the Court noted that a complaint had  been received by the Bar Council from the appellants and  was pending before the Bar Council. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  We  have also perused the relevant record. From the record, it  is clear that the main question relates to genuineness or  otherwise of Will dated April 14, 1989 said to have been  executed by Ratni Devi in favour of respondent No. 5. The  validity and genuineness of the Will can only be decided  by a competent Civil Court. A suit had already been  instituted in a Civil Court and though it was dismissed,  the order is subject matter of appeal pending in the  appellate court. It is, therefore, neither desirable nor  advisable to express any opinion on that question and as  and when the matter will come up for hearing, it will be  decided on its own merits by the High Court where it is  pending. So far as mutation is concerned, it clear that entry  has been made and mutation has been effected in  Revenue Records by Tehsildar on the basis of an  application made by respondent No.5 herein and his  name has been entered in Record of Rights on the basis  of the Will said to have been executed by Ratni Devi. In  our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that by entering  the name of respondent No. 5 in Revenue Records, any  illegality had been committed by Tehsildar. It is true that  no notice was issued to the appellants but the Tehsildar  had taken the action on the basis of Will said to have  been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of  respondent No. 5.  The said order has been confirmed by  the Collector as also by Financial Commissioner. When  the grievance was made against the said action by filing   a Writ Petition, the High Court also confirmed all the  orders passed by Revenue Authorities under the Act. We  see no infirmity so far as that part of the order is  concerned. There is an additional reason as to why we need not  interfere with that order under Article 136 of the  Constitution.  It is well settled that an entry in Revenue  Records does not confer title on a person whose name  appears in Record of Rights.  It is settled law that entries  in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only ’fiscal  purpose’ i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership  is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to  the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a  competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh  and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1653). As already noted earlier,  Civil Proceedings in regard to genuineness of Will are  pending with High Court of Delhi.  In the circumstances,  we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the  High Court in the writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be  dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. We may,  however, clarify that we may not be understood to have  expressed any opinion on correctness on genuineness of  the Will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni  Devi in favour of respondent No. 5. It was stated at the  Bar that against dismissal of the suit by the trial Court  on the ground of limitation, an appeal is filed by the  appellants which is pending before the High Court of  Delhi. As and when the said appeal will be taken up for  hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

being influenced by observations made by us in this  judgment. We may also make it clear that we are not  expressing any opinion on the entitlement of  compensation said to have been awarded in land  acquisition proceedings. All contentions of all parties are  kept open and all questions will be decided in  appropriate proceedings by Competent Authorities or  Courts without being inhibited by the present decision. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the facts  and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be  no order as to costs.