S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 11. 8. 1995 passed by the Tehsildar, Najafgarh carrying out mutation of inheritance in respect of 1/9th share in Khata No. 371 in village Tikri Kalan, Tehsil Najafgarh in the name of Sarvashri Raj Singh, Vinay Kumar, Satyawan and Satpal Singh all sons of Smt. Bharto D/o Shri Harphool Singh. The writ petition also challenges an order dated 10. 8. 1998 passed by the Tehsildar dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 11. 8. 1995 and an order dated 10. 9. 1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners here.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Shri Harphool singh, the father of the petitioners and their sister Smt. Bharto, died intestate in 1964. Smt. Bharto was at that time married. Shri Harphool Singh was the joint recorded bhumidar in respect of 55 bighas and 6 biswas of agricultural land in village Tikri Kalan. According to the petitioners, on shri Harphool Singh dying intestate in 1964, his total holding devolved on the petitioners being the male descendants as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land reforms Act, 1954 (DLRA ). It is stated that in the year 1968-69 a mutation was carried in favour of Smt. Bharto by the Patwari on his own whereby 1/3rd share each of the father"s share (. e. 1/9th share in the property) in favour of the two petitioners and Smt. Bharto, was carried out. It is stated that the Patwari did this on his own applying the general law of succession.

( 3 ) SMT. Bharto died on 14. 8. 1986. Upon her death, her four sons Sarvashri raj Singh, Vinay Kumar, Satyawan and Satpal Singh (Respondents 6 to 9 herein) applied for mutation in respect of her entire 1/9th share in the total land which had earlier been mutated in her favour. By the impugned order dated 11. 8. 1995, the Tehsildar allowed this application. It is stated that this was done without any notice to the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE petitioners claim to have come to know of this mutation only on 22. 5. 1998 whereupon they moved an application under Section 55 of the Delhi Land revenue Act, 1954 ("revenue Act") before the Tehsildar for recall of the order dated 11. 8. 1995. That application was dismissed by the second impugned order dated 10. 8. 1998. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision petition under section 72 of the Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner who dismissed it by the third impugned order dated 10. 9. 1998 on the ground that the petitioners could not explain why they did not file objections before the Tehsildar despite notice being issued.

( 5 ) IT is then stated that out of the total land of 55 bighas and 6 biswas, land measuring 34 bighas and 5 biswas was acquired in 1997 under the Land acquisition Act 1894 ("la Act") by an Award No. 17/97-98. Compensation was also assessed. The petitioners as well as the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 applied for withdrawal of the compensation. While the petitioners withdrew their share, they objected to the withdrawal of the amount by respondent Nos. 6 to 9. It is stated that the petitioner, on 2. 9. 1998, filed an application under Section 30 and 31 of the LA Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) (Punjabi Bagh special Division), respondent No. 2, for referring the dispute to the Civil Court but that respondent No. 2 was not inclined to accept such request. In these circumstances, on 30. 10. 1998, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the mutation in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and the subsequent orders confirming the said mutation.

( 6 ) A prayer was also made for a direction to the LAC to make a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act to the civil Court and for a direction to prevent the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 from receiving payment of land acquisition compensation till the decision on such dispute is rendered by the civil court. It was also prayed that res