JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner herein was married to Shri Sardar Singh. The petitioner is issueless. Her husband Shri Sardar Singh, when this marriage with petitioner was still subsisting, married to one Smt. Gindori, widow of Shri Mange. Shri Mange was real brother of Shri Sardar Singh. Out of this marriage between Shri Sardar Singh and Smt.Gindori, three children were born, viz., Respondents 3 and 4 as well as father of respondents 5 and 6 late Shri Ranbir Singh. Shri Sardar Singh died in the year 1979. He was Bhumidar of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.132 (2-2), 79 (0-6), 6/15 (0-11) and 16 min. (0-9) comprised in Khata No.144 situated at Village Bamnoli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit land'). On the death of Shri Sardar Singh, suit land was mutated in the name of the petitioner and three children of late Sardar Singh, namely, respondents 3, 4 and Shri Ranbir Singh in equal shares vide mutation order dated 19.10.79 passed by Naib Tehsildar (Palam). Proceedings recorded while passing this mutation order are as under:
'Proceedings are complete in the file. Proclamation after issuance and pasting is in the file. No objection has yet been filed. Shri Balwan Singh identified by Shri Ranbir Singh Pardhan Gram Sabha of Village Bamnoli is present. They have made statements which are in the file. Certificate of death has been perused, the photocopy of which is placed on the file. Three sons of the deceased are the heirs but these heirs in the presence of Pardhan state that 1/4th share out of the holding of the deceased should be given to their Mausi-Smt. Chhoti. Smt. Chhoti be given a share as after her death, her share shall devolve upon the three sons. Under these circumstances the facts are verified. There is no bar in the sanction of mutation. Thus mutation of inheritance of Sardar Singh deceased is sanctioned in the names of Balwan Singh, Khem Chand Ranvir - sons and Smt.Chhoti - widow, each having 1/4th share. Fees Rs.0.75 be collected. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Order is announced."
(English Translation) Shri Ranbir Singh has since died.
2. The petitioner claims that she has been in cultivatory possession of the suit land since then. However, after a period of 19 years, the respondents 3 to 6 filed appeal against the aforesaid mutation order under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act. The petitioner contested the appeal on various grounds including on the ground that this appeal was clearly time barred. The Appellate Authority, Additional Collector (SW) Delhi/respondent no.2 after hearing the parties passed order dated 27.8.1999. He not only allowed the appeal and condoned the delay in filing the appeal but set-aside mutation order dated 19.10.1979 as well holding that the mutation order was void and illegal. His decision to condone the delay was supported by following reasons:
"After hearing the arguments and going through the contents of application as well as other records on file. I find that the impugned order has been passed on 19.10.79 and present appeal has been filed in 1998 i.e after 19 years whereas the limitation provided for it is only 30 days and prima facie it appears to be time barred. But in view of the merits of the appeal it is evident that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the provisions enshrined in Section 50 of the Act. In the impugned order mutation has also been sanctioned in favor of widow of the deceased which is void-ab-initio and there is no limitation for challenging void orders. This view has already been taken by the Financial Commissioner in case no.342/96-CA, Ram Rati V/s. Nanhi Devi, Date of decision 10.1.97. Moreover, Punjab & Haryana High Court has also held in R.S.A. 442 of 1989, Punjab state v/s. Sansar Preet Mandal, dated 20.3.90 that void orders or proceedings can be challenged at any time. It is a settled law that mutation does not create any right, title or interest but it is simply for the purpose of updating revenue records. Considering all these facts, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the counsel for respondent. Consequently, I condone the delay."
3. Holding that mutation order was null and void, learned Appellate Authority observed as under:
"I have heard the arguments and gone through the contents of appeal, applications written arguments and citations of law. I find that the appellants are the only legal heir of Sh. Sardar Singh, deceased and are entitled to inherit the property and mutation should have been sanctioned in their favor only. Moreover, on the basis of registered will executed in favor of appellants, the appellants are the only legal heir. Hence by no way, the respondent is entitled for mutation. The mutation sanctioned in favor of respondent is void and does not deserve any sanctity in the eyes of law. As per provisions of Section 48 of the Act, the mutation can not be sanctioned on the basis of succession in presence of Will. As regards the contention of respondent that the appellants did not make objection earlier and therefore they are stopped does not deserve any merit as the appellants were not aware of the Will which is a secret document. Moreover, the appellants were also not aware of the legal position. Merely presence during the proceedings without knowing legal position cannot be treated as admission and the appellants are not bound by the same. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP.No.5057/88 dated 1-11-88, Indian Oil Corporation v/s. Municipality Thanswar held that admission by a citizen in ignorance of his legal rights cannot bind the maker of admission. Consequently the principles of Estoppel does not apply on the appellants. Considering all these facts, I find that the impugned order is void and does not deserve any merit. Consequently, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and sanction mutation in favor of the appellants."
4. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the Financial Commissioner. This appeal has been dismissed in liming vide order dated 11.10.1999 endorsing the view taken by First Appellate Authority. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
" On going through the impugned order, I find that a registered will is available in favor of the respondents only in this case. Hence it is correctly held that order of succession under Section 50 is not to apply here in view of the registered will available. I further find that the delay was condoned by the Collector rightly in filing the appeal by the respondents as filing an appeal against void order / proceedings has no limitation as per High Court's rulings and this Court's earlier order quoted by the Collector in the impugned order.
The appellant's plea here of illegitimate marriage of Sardar Singh with the respondents' mother can be looked into only by a Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court."
5. This writ petition is preferred seeking quashing of aforesaid two orders dated 27.8.1999 and 11.10.1999 passed by First and Second Appellate Authority respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that filing of the appeal by the respondents 3 to 6 was a dishonest act on their part that too after 19 years of the passing of the mutation order and the delay was wrongly condoned. He submitted that on the basis of statements made by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner should also be given 1/4th share in the properties left by late Sardar Singh, the mutation was done and the petitioner was given 1/4th share. He further submitted that petitioner came to possess the land which she had cultivated all these years. Not only this, during this period part of land had been acquired by the Government and the petitioner received 1/4th share of compensation. His submission was that in these circumstances it should clearly be inferred that mutation in favor of the petitioner giving her 1/4th share was a result of family settlement which family settlement had been acted for such a long period and this family settlement should have been given effect to. According to him, the courts below ignored this vital aspect by not giving necessary weightage to this family arrangement and on the basis of alleged will allegedly executed by late Shri Sardar Singh, mutation was set-aside illegally. He referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others in support of his plea of family settlement, particularly referred to para 5, 6,19 and 24 of this judgment which read as under:
"5. Thereafter respondents 4 and 5 filed a revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by his order dated January 22, 1965, reversed the order of the Settlement Officer and expunged the name of the appellant Kale from khatas Nos. 5 and 90 and recorded the name of respondent no.5 Musamat Ram Pyari in respect of these Khatas on the ground that she was the sole tenure holder in respect of those Khatas.
6. Thereafter the appellant Kale and his mother Musamat Tikia appellant no.2 filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition was heard in the first instance by a Single Judge who dismissed the petition upholding the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The appellant then filed a special appeal to the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which also affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal - hence this appeal by special leave.
19. Thus it would appear from a review of the decisions analysed above that the Courts have taken a very liberal and broad view of the validity of the family settlement and have always tried to uphold it and maintain it. The central idea in the approach made by the Courts is that if by consent of parties a matter has been settled, it should not be allowed to be re-opened by the parties to the agreement on frivolous or untenable grounds.
24. This Court has also clearly laid down that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. We shall deal with this point a little later when we consider the arguments of the respondents on the question of the estoppel. In the light of the decisions indicated above, we shall now try to apply the principles laid down by this Court and the other Courts to the facts of the present case."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 on the other hand submitted that plea of family settlement was not raised by the petitioner at any stage in the courts below and it was raised for the first time in this petition. He further submitted that respondents 3 to 6 did not know about the registered will and on coming to know of this will they filed appeal against mutation order dated 19.10.1979 and the Additional Collector in these circumstances rightly condoned the delay in filing the appeal, more so when mutation order was against the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act as well as Delhi Land Revenue Act and void ab nitio He further submitted that Section 48 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act gives right to the Bhoomidar to bequeath his property in favor of any person and Section 50 of the Act states that such succession is subject to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, meaning thereby, the will and mandate of Section 48 of the Act will prevail upon the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. It will also be worthy to mention herein that otherwise also, under the provisions of the Act, succession first has to be in favor of male descendants and since respondent nos.3 and 4 are the sons of late Shri Sardar Singh and so also the father of respondents 5 and 6 and as such the mutation has to follow in their names only and not in favor of any other person. He also submitted that the petitioner Smt.Chhoti Devi who was the respondent in the said appeal, took the plea of acquiescence only. In fact there was no other plea except the acquiescence. The Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the law, which was so cited, as is clear from the order also, was pleased to reject the said plea. It has been so held by the Court that Doctrine of Estoppel as has been so propounded is not applicable in view of the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, as held in the order dated 27th August,1999. The Court has rightly considered that since there is a registered will in favor of the appellants and as such they are the only legal heirs. The Court, in fact, has also gone to the extent of saying that under Section 50 of the Act, only the respondents 3 to 6 are entitled to inherit the property and there is no question of inheritance by Smt.Chhoti Devi. He also submitted that mere mutation of property in the name of the petitioner would not confer any title upon her as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram and others (1996) Vol.11 SCC 257 and 1997 Vol.1 SCC 734. At the end he submitted that petitioner being their step mother and Mausi, respondents had no objection if she continues in the suit land during her life time. However, the petitioner who was issueless, wanted to dispose of the property to some third parties with mala fide intentions which was not acceptable to the respondents.
8. Let us first consider as to what is the position of inheritance under the provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Act and Delhi Land Reforms Act.
9. Sections 48 and Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Section 22 of Delhi Land Revenue Act would be relevant and throw light on the issue at hand. It would be, therefore, appropriate to reproduce these Sections in the first instance:
Sections 48 and 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act:
"48. Bequest by a Bhumidhar -A Bhumidhar may by will bequeath his holding or any part thereof except as provided in sub-section (2).
(2) No Bhumidhar entitled to any holding or part in the right of a widow, mother, step-mother, father's father, father's mother, unmarried daughter, or unmarried sister, may bequeath by will such holding or part.
(3) Every will made under provisions of sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom or usage, be in writing and attested by two persons."
"50. General order of succession from males- Subject to the provisions of Sections 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below:
(a) male lineal descendants in the male line or desent:
Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and, the deceased is alive:
Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased on how howsoever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive;
(b) widow;
(c ) father;
(d) mother, being a widow;
(e) step mother, being a widow;
(f) father's father;
(g) father's mother, being a widow;
(h) widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent;
(i) unmarried daughter;
(j) brother, being the son of the same father as the deceased;
(k) unmarried sister;
(l) brother's son, the brother having been a son of the same father as the deceased;
(m) father's father's son;
(n) brother's son's son;
(o) father's father's son's son;
(p) daughter's son."
Section 22 of Delhi Land Revenue Act,1954:
"22. Report of succession or transfer of possession - (1) Every person obtaining possession on admission by the Gaon Sabha as Bhumidhar or Asami or by succession or by transfer other than a lease permitted under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, of any land in a village which is required to be recorded in the register specified in Section 20 shall report such admission, or transfer to the Tahsildar.
(2) In the case of an admission by the Gaon Sabha as Bhumidhar or Asami or of a succession or transfer, other than a lease permitted under Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954, the report shall be made immediately after it has taken place.
(3) In the case of a lease permitted under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the report shall be made by Lesser immediately after the lessee has been delivered possession there under.
(4) If the person so succeeding, or otherwise obtaining possession, or, in the case of a lease, the Lesser is a minor or otherwise disqualified the guardian or other person who has charge of his property shall make the report required by this section.
(5) No revenue court shall entertain a suit or application by the person so succeeding or otherwise obtaining possession or, in the case, of a leave by the Lesser until such person has made the report required by this section.
Explanation - The word `transfer' includes -
(i) a family settlement by which the holding or part of the holding recorded in the record-of-rights in the name of one or more members of that family is declared to belong to another or other member, or
(ii) an exchange of holding under Section 40 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954."
10. Thus Section 48 provides that a Bhumidhar is entitled to make a bequest of his holding. If there is no will general order of succession from males is stipulated in Section 50 of the Act as per which the first right is given to male lineal descendants and in case there are no males lineal descendants then the next person in order of succession would be widow.
11. If it is to be treated that there was no will, then as per Section 50, it is respondents 3 to 6 who could inherit the property as successor of land of late Shri Sardar Singh. Late Shri Sardar Singh, however, executed registered will and even as per this will he bequeathed suit land in favor of his sons only. Thus whether the case is treated of testamentary succession or intestate succession, in both the eventualities it is the respondents 3 to 6 who could inherit the property in question after the death of late Sardar Singh.
12. Mr.Vipin Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fully conscious of this fact took shelter of Section 22 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act,1954 and projected family settlement. His submission was, as noted above, that if as a result of family settlement there is a transfer of possession, it could be done notwithstanding provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
13. However, in order to succeed on this ground, it is a pre-condition that the petitioner is able to satisfy such a family settlement having arrived at. Mr.Vipin Singh was candid in his submission that no family settlement was arrived at between the parties. He tried to draw sustenance from the proceedings recorded by Tehsildar on 19.10.1979 as per which settlement as given by the respondents to the effect that they had no objection if 1/4 th share of the holding of deceased Sardar Singh is given to the petitioner. It may be pointed out at this stage that Mr.Dalal was right in his submission that plea of family settlement had not been taken either before First Appellate Authority or even in the Second Appellate Authority. A copy of the second appeal filed by the petitioner was placed on record and perusal thereof shows that no such case on the basis of family settlement is set-up by the petitioner. Even if this is to be treated as settlement as some arrangement was worked out as it clear from the mutation proceedings, it is clearly recorded in the proceedings dated 19.10.1979 that three sons had no objection if 1/4th share out of the holding of the deceased is given to the petitioner subject to following understanding:
"Smt.Chhoti Devi (petitioner) be given a share as after her death, her share shall devolve upon the three sons".
14. Thus the clear intention even in making such a settlement was that the petitioner be given life interest in the property with clear understanding that after her death said share shall devolve upon the three sons. Therefore, even if proceedings before the Tehsildar are to be treated as family settlement this family settlement gives only life interest to the petitioner. The petitioner who would not have got any share in the suit land either under Section 50 or under Section 48 because of will, got only life interest by virtue of settlement of respondents 3 to 6 before the Tehsildar.
15. As already pointed out above, Mr.Dalal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 gave a concession to the effect that they would have no objection if the petitioner continue to occupy the suit land during her life time and their only grievance was that petitioner should not be permitted to sell the land in question.
16. Insofar as contention of delay in filing the appeal by respondents 3 to 6 before Additional Collector is concerned, going by the provisions of will and finding that mutation in question was void ab nitio , the Additional Collector had condoned the delay. As far as condensation of delay is concerned, it is a matter of discretion. It cannot be said that discretion was exercised wholly arbitrarily or without any cogent reasons. Even the Second Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority and did not deem it appropriate to interfere with this decision. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the first appeal of the respondents 3 to 6 on the ground that delay was not rightly condoned.
17. Keeping in view the concession given by respondents 3 to 6 at the time of mutation proceedings which is reiterated by Mr.Dalal at the time of arguments, note of which has been taken above, the impugned orders passed by First and Second Appellate Authority are modified to the extent that the suit land would remain mutated in petitioner's favor during her life time i.e. she would have only life interest in the suit land. As a sequitur, the petitioner shall remain in possession of the suit land during her life time and would not be dis-possessed by respondents 3 to 6. However, she will have no right to sell the suit land which would stand reverted back to the respondents 3 to 6 after her death.
18. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
19. No costs.