Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S. MEHTA, J.
Satbir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2017
Decided on : 15-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Dhruv Sharma, Adv., Saumya Das, Adv., Manoranjan, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a registered deed as prima facie proof of its execution and the need for revenue officers to avoid getting into the intricacies of the legality and validity of a registered Will.
Headnote:
Mutation - Validity of Will - The court discussed the legality and validity of a registered Will dated 30.10.1984 in favor of the petitioners, the mutation of land, and the role of the revenue officers in mutation proceedings. The court highlighted the importance of a registered deed as prima facie proof of its execution and the need for revenue officers to avoid getting into the intricacies of the legality and validity of a registered Will.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of a mutation order passed by the Financial Commissioner in a land dispute case. The dispute arose from the execution of a registered Will dated 30.10.1984 in favor of the petitioners by Dalel Singh, who died in 1994. The mutation of the land in question was contested through multiple legal proceedings, leading to continuous litigation for over 22 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a registered Will in favor of the petitioners, and the revenue officers should have given formal effect to the registered deed as prima facie proof of its execution. The court set aside the order of the Collector and directed the mutation of the land in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for revenue officers to avoid delving into the intricacies of the legality and validity of a registered Will.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the registered Will, the mutation of the land, and the role of revenue officers in mutation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a registered deed as prima facie proof of its execution and the need for revenue officers to avoid getting into the intricacies of the legality and validity of a registered Will. It also highlighted the presumption that the deceased executed a valid Will in a sound and disposing state of mind, based on the registration formalities of the Will.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Collector, and directed the mutation of the land in favor of the petitioners. The court also emphasized that if there was any grievance, the opposite party could approach a competent Civil Court to determine their better right, title, and interest and the invalidation of the Will in question.
I.S. Mehta, J.
The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner in Case No. 184/2012.
2. Facts on record shows that one Dalel Singh S/o Ghisa Ram was recorded Bhumidar in respect of land forming part of Khasra No. 75/3/2(1-15), 4/1(1-8) and 4/2(3-08) measuring approximately 6 Bighas and 11 Biswas in total, situated within the revenue estate of village Dhansa, Delhi. He was unmarried and was uncle of present petitioners. Dalel Singh executed a Will dated 30.10.1984 in favour of present petitioners. Dalel Singh died on 01.05.1994. Thereafter, it is stated, both the petitioners moved an application before Tehsildar for mutation of the aforesaid land on the basis of the said registered Will. The Tehsildar instead of giving effect to said registered Will, told petitioners to file application alongwith death certificate. Tehsildar despite having knowledge of the registered will dated 30.10.1984, later mutated the land in question at the back of the petitioners in favour of Sh. Om Prakash (Respondent No.4 herein) vide order dated 31.05.1994.
3. The Petitioners aggrieved from the said mutation order preferred an appeal before the Ld. Additional Collector. The Ld. Additional Collector after hearing the parties set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 31.05.1994 and remanded back matter to Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant for a de-novo trial vide order dated 13.03.1996. It seems during the pendency of the trial by SDM/RA, petitioner herein filed Civil suit for partition in Suit No. 113/02 against Respondent No.4 The said suit was dismissed on 17.03.2003. Subsequently, Respondent No.4 too filed another suit, Suit No. 247/2010 against the petitioners for declaration of Will as null and void, same was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 02.02.2011. Aggrieved from the order dated 02.02.2011, Respondent No.4 preferred appeal, same was dismissed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 06.08.2011.
4. Thereafter, petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP(C) 13672/09. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2010 directed SDM/RA to decide the matter in one month. The SDM/RA after hearing the parties sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 29.03.2010. Respondent No.4 aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by SDM/RA dated 29.03.2010 preferred appeal before Collector (SW), same was allowed and order passed by SDM/RA was set aside, Collector (SW) directs mutation in the name of Respondent No.4 vide order dated 26.03.2012.
5. Petitioner aggrieved from the order passed by Collector (SW) dated 26.03.2012 preferred second appeal before Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by Collector (SW) and to restore the order of SDM/RA dated 29.03.2010.
6. Financial Commissioner after hearing the parties and going through the available records set aside the order passed by Collector (SW) dated 26.03.2012 and remanded back the matter to SDM/RA (Najafgarh) with direction to decide the matter afresh in a time bound manner vide order dated 06.12.2016.
7. Aggrieved from the said order of Financial Commissioner dated 06.12.2016 petitioner preferred to file the present writ petition under article 226 of The Constitution of India with following grounds and prayer:
Grounds:
The impugned order dated 06.12.2016 is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, based on surmises and conjectures and the findings does not stands the judicial scrutiny for want of proper appreciation of facts on record which led 23-24 years of continuous litigation between the parties. The claim of the petitioner is based on a registered Will and Tehsildar has got no power to look into the legality and validity of registered Will in question except to go for mutation in favour of the petitioners. Prayer:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 06.12.2016.
ii. Issue a
