The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of determining the date of knowledge of the mutation order for the maintainability of an appeal under the Delhi Land Revenue Act.

Ms. G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.6.2006 in W.P.(C) No.4/1998.

2. The appeal was initially dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25.08.2006. The appellants carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court and Civil Appeal No.4314/2007 was allowed by order dated 31.07.2014 thereby setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2006 as well as the order dated 25.08.2006 of the Division Bench and remanding the matter to this Court for de novo consideration. Pursuant thereto, the appeal has been listed before us.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the dispute between the parties pertains to inheritance of the share of late Sara in agricultural lands situated in village Rajokri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

4. For proper appreciation of the controversy we shall at the outset narrate the facts in brief.

(i) One Shri Gangal was the owner and possessor of agricultural lands situated in village Rajkori, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as land in question). He had four sons, namely, Hira Singh, Ram Singh, Ram Saran and Shambu. Smt. Sara is the widow of late Harlal, s/o Ram Singh (second son of Gangal) who died issueless. Her name was recorded as bhoomidar in respect of the share to which her husband had succeeded out of the land in question. She died in the year 1966. Thereafter, by order dated 10.12.1966 passed by the Tehsildar, Mehrauli, the mutation of inheritance of late Sara was sanctioned in favour of Chatter, son of Shambu, (fourth son of Gangal). Against the said order of Tehsildar dated 10.12.1966 the legal heirs of Nanwa, son of Hira Singh (first son of Gangal) filed an appeal in the year 1995 before the Collector (South West) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay.

(ii) By order dated 30.7.1997 the Collector (South West) condoned the delay and on merits it was held that the Tehsildar’s order dated 10.12.1966 was contrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. Accordingly the order dated 10.12.1966 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Revenue Assistant/ SDM to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to both the parties.

(iii) Against the said order of the Collector dated 30.07.1997 Chatter filed a further appeal under Section 64(1)(c) of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed in limine by order dated 13.11.1997. Hence, Chatter filed WP No. (C) 4/1998 contending inter alia that both the Collector and the Financial Commissioner committed an error in overlooking the fact that the appeal for setting aside the mutation was preferred after 29 long years. The Learned Single Judge declined to interfere observing that the order impugned in the writ petition was merely a remand order and would not in any manner prejudice the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 28.7.2006 directing the Revenue Assistant to hear the matter on merits and pass a speaking order within 6 months.

(iv) LPA No.1773/2006 preferred by the writ petitioner (Chatter) against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 25.8.2006.

(v) The appellant/writ petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 4314/2007 contending inter alia that Section 67 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 does not contemplate condonation of delay in filing an appeal and, therefore, no appeal could have been entertained by the Collector (South West) in the year 1995 against the order of the Tehsildar dated 10.12.1966. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that they had the knowledge of the order of mutation dated 10.12.1966 only on 14.12.1995 and, therefore, the appeal was within time. Though the Collector (South West) had proceeded on the basis that the re