An appellate revenue authority, in the interest of justice, may pass consequential directions regarding land mutation to align revenue records with a binding, pre-existing, and unchallenged partition order, even if the primary scope of the appeal did not explicitly list every affected sub-plot of the same partition.

1. The Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of land measuring 6 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 143/215, situated in the revenue estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081. According to the Petitioner, her rights in respect of the said land have remained undisturbed and have been duly reflected in the revenue records for a considerable period.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that an application for mutation was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant, North-West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi, by one Shashi Gupta. The Petitioner asserts that both the mutation application and the order dated 18th July, 2008 passed thereon by the SDM/RA pertained exclusively to Khasra No. 144/99 (2-2), situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Kanjhawala. It is emphasised that the SDM’s order neither adverted to nor adjudicated upon any rights or entries concerning Khasra No. 143/215.

3. The mutation order dated 18th July, 2008, passed by the SDM/RA was challenged by Respondent No. 2, Rajinder Singh Dabas, by way of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, North-West District, Kanjhawala. The Petitioner contends that even in the memorandum of appeal and the grounds urged therein, the challenge was confined strictly to Khasra No. 144/99 (2-2), and no grievance whatsoever was raised in relation to Khasra No. 143/215. The Deputy Commissioner, however, while disposing of the appeal, issued directions not only in respect of Khasra No. 144/99 (2-2) but also qua Khasra No. 143/215 (0-6). According to the Petitioner, these directions have adversely affected her recorded rights and possession in respect of Khasra No. 143/215, despite the absence of any challenge, pleadings, or adjudication concerning the said land.

4. The order dated 20th August, 2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, after noticing the rival claims, recorded as follows:

“This order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.07.2008 in case bearing No. 2449/2008 passed by SDM/RA (SV), Kanjhawala, Delhi. The respondent did not appear before this Court despite duly served as such the respondent is proceeded ex-parte and final arguments were heard on 06.08.2014. Brief facts of the case are that Meer Singh, Sri Ram and Bhartu all sons of Kuria Rio VIII. & P.O. Kajhavala, New Delhi were having 1/3 each in the agricultural land jointly situated in the revenue state of village Kanjhawala. The appellant had purchased the share of Meer Singh and Sri Ram and both have received the entire, consideration amount from the appellant i.e. to the extent of Rs, 4,50,000/- each and both Meer Singh and Sri Ram vide cheque bearing No. 488878 payable to PNB Nanglol, Delhi for the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of Sri Ram and a cash receipt of Rs. 3,25,000/- and had executed certain documents in favour of the appellant such as GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit and registered Will and receipt of payment and possession letter. After receiving the entire consideration from the appellant, the appellant was also put into the physical possession by deceased Meer Singh at spot. Meer Singh and Sri Ram both have expired on 03.11.2006 and 11.01.2005 respectively. Both the aforesaid persons were unmarked and died issueless. After the death of Meer Singh, the appellant had applied for the sanction of mutation in his favour vide application in respect of share of deceased Meer Singh on 08.12.2006 before the Tehsildar. The Ld. Tehsildar