JUDGMENT

I.S. Mehta, J. Instant petitions under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India have been filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner, dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Collector Revenue DC/North and the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the Tehsildar.

2. The brief facts stated are that Sh. Layak Ram S/o Kanhiya was the recorded co-owner of 1/3 share of Khata no. 81/69 and 1/2 share of Khata no. 73/62 along with his two brothers namely Desraj S/o Kanhiya and Kehar Singh S/o Kanhiya in the aforesaid agriculture land situated within the revenue estate of village Mohd. Pur Ramjanpur, Delhi.

3. On 13.01.1995 Layak Ram S/o Kanhiya Lal died leaving behind three married daughters i.e. Savitri, Bimla and Darshana (Respondent No. 2 to 4), no male child was born during the life time of Layak Ram. After the death of Late Layak Ram mutation proceedings pertaining to agricultural land comprised in khata no. 75(4-16), 76(4-16), 77 (4-16), 78 min (1-16), 155 (4-16), 231 (1-8), 230 (1-12), 233 (4-12), 336 (3-9), 339 (4-10) & 340 (2-3), 227 (4-16), 228 (4-16), 232 (4-13) total measuring 52 Bigha 19 Biswa (which is share of deceased Layak Ram out of two khata) was carried out and Tehsildar, Alipur mutated share of Layak Ram in favour of Respondent No.2 to 4. The plea taken by the Petitioners Malkhan Singh, Chander Has, Sanjeet Sehrawat and Vishal Sehrawat was ignored that Late Layak Ram was co-share of the property in question. Aggrieved from the order of the Tehsildar Respondent No. 2 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Revenue DC/North vide appeal No. 31/DCN/2030/4638, same was dismissed on 07.10.2013.

4. Being aggrieved from the said order the petitioners of both petitions i.e. WP(C) 6614/2014 & 6106/2015 filed second appeal before the Ld. Financial Commissioner, Delhi in case No. 204/13, Financial Commissioner passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal of the petitioners.

5. Aggrieved from the Order of Ld. Financial Commissioner present petitioners of both petitions have challenged the impugned Orders.

6. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that Tehsildar has sanctioned the mutation on the basis of Hindu Succession Act. He further submits that no notice of sanction was issued prior to sanction of mutation. He further submits that the daughters are not entitled to bhumidari rights as per Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. He further submits that the petitioners are reversioners and are entitled to bhumidari rights.

7. Learned Counsel of Petitioner further submits that, factually, the case is, "Daughters versus Reversioners".

He further submits that story of two wills of deceased Layak Ram is false, as those two wills were not genuine and were not probated. He further submits that the deceased Layak Ram at the time of his death neither left any will nor the daughters were legally entitled for bhumidari rights under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. He further submits that the deceased Layak Ram died without having any male issue, therefore, under law the bhumidari rights has to be rewarded back to the male legal descendants i.e., reversioner under Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

8. He further submits that as per the available record, daughters were married when deceased Layak ram died on 13.01.1995. He submits that the female cannot inherit bhumidari rights as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the bhumidari rights could be devolved on the basis of the section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and not by way of Hindu Succession Act as Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is a specific Act which deals with the devolution of interest of Bhumidar rights. Since, Layak Ram died in year 1995, Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 will not be applicable. Therefore, mutation was to be given effect in favour of the male descendents. He furth