The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the mutation of land in favor of the appellants due to the reserved status of the land for the 'Kumhar' community and the invalid sale deed executed by the appellants.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Both these intra-court appeals impugn the common order dated 07.05.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.11797-99/2006 and W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 filed by the appellants respectively. The said writ petitions were filed impugning the order dated 08.06.2006 of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the Second Appeal under Sections 64 and 65 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 preferred by the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 against the order dated 20.03.2006 of the Collector (North-West). The order dated 20.03.2006 of the Collector (North-West) in turn was of allowing the First Appeal preferred by the Gaon Sabha, village Sultanpur Dabas against the order dated 17.12.1998 of mutation of land ad-measuring 7 Bighas and 3 Biswas in village Sultanpur Dabas in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012.

2. The Collector (North-West), the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge in their concurrent orders have held the mutation of the said land in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 to be bad for the reason: (a) that the said land was kept reserved for the ‘Kumhar’ community of the village, to enable them to take out earth therefrom and earn their livelihood; (b) that however the appellant in LPA No.490/2012 claiming to be one of the only five members of the Kumhar community in the village and as the attorney of the other four, had executed a Sale Deed of the said land in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 and on the basis of which Sale Deed, the mutation had been effected; (c) that neither the appellant in LPA No.490/2012 nor any of the other members of the Kumhar community had any title to the said land or authorized to transfer the same and thus the said Sale Deed did not vest any right in the said land in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 and the mutation in their favour was thus bad; (d) that the Gaon Sabha had filed the First Appeal to the Collector (North-West), though after seven years of mutation but immediately upon the same coming to its notice and hence the delay in filing the First Appeal was correctly condoned; (e) that the mutation even otherwise was without issuance of notice to the Gaon Sabha to whom and in whom the land belonged/vested.

3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants before us is that the Kumhar community of the village was the Bhumidhar of the said land and all the members of the said community were thus, as Bhumidhar, entitled to sell the said land and the sale was valid and the land had been correctly mutated in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012. It is further argued that there is no provision for issuing notice of the mutation application to the Gaon Sabha and there was thus no error in the mutation which has been set aside.

4. At this stage, it may also be stated that the Gaon Sabha had also instituted proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for recovering possession of the said land from the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 and which proceedings though have been dropped by the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the appeal of the Gaon Sabha thereagainst is pending consideration. The learned Single Judge for the said reason, though has upheld the order aforesaid of the Collector (North-West) and the Financial Commissioner of setting aside the mutation in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 of the said land but has struck down the order of the Collector (North-West) insofar as also directing the land to be reverted in the records of the Revenue Authorities in the name of the Gaon Sabha.

5. We have enquired from the counsel for the appellants as to how the Kumhar community could be the Bhumidhar and/or as to how the members for the time being thereof could transfer the said land inasmuch as the land appears to be for the benefit of the community from time to time. Though the counsel for the appellants has attempted to reply to our said query but we are of the