Smt. Kiran Diwania vs Financial Commissioner, Delhi & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 2665 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 01.07.2013

+       LPA No. 1073/2011

SMT. KIRAN DIWANIA                                       ...   Appellant

                                         versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS...                         Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant          : Mr Raj Singh Mathur with Mr B.S. Kharb
For the Respondent Nos.1-4 : Ms Anjana Gosain
For the Respondent No. 5   : Mr Sumit Chandra

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, THE ACTING
CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated

08.11.2011 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court in WP (C)

7837/2008 (Kiran Diwania v. Financial Commissioner and Others). The

matter pertains to the entry in the record of rights in respect of 50 bighas,

16 biswas of land in village Galibpur, Delhi. The appellant claims that her

name alone should have been recorded in the record of rights under the

Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. She claims that her name should have

been so recorded on the basis of a Will dated 19.06.1967 which had been

probated by virtue of an order of the District Judge, Delhi on 26.03.1993.

The said Will was executed by Smt. Manbhari, who is the maternal grand

mother of the appellant. Smt. Manbhari was married to Shri Ami Lal. Shri

Ami Lal passed away in 1930 prior to the enactment of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954. His widow (Smt. Manbhari) was regarded as a

Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Smt. Manbhari died on

19.05.1968 leaving behind her daughter (Smt. Sunder) as her sole surviving

heir. The appellant (Kiran Diwania) is the daughter of Smt. Sunder. The

appellant also has a sister by the name of Ratan Bala. Shri Suraj Bhan

(Respondent No.5) claimed that his name ought to be recorded in the record

of rights under the Delhi Land Revenue Act inasmuch as he claimed under

an alleged Will dated 12.09.1979 allegedly executed by Smt. Sunder, who,

according to him, had inherited the rights as a Bhumidhar from her mother

(Smt. Manbhari). Thus, while the appellant Kiran Diwania claims her right

under the Will dated 19.06.1967 executed by Smt. Manbhari, Suraj Bhan

(Respondent No.5) claims his right under the alleged Will dated 12.09.1979

allegedly executed by Smt. Sunder in his favour.

2. It would be pertinent to point out that the present appeal has arisen

out of the revenue proceedings under the Delhi Land Revenue Act. It is not

in dispute that upon the death of Ami Lal, Smt. Manbhari was the

Bhumidhar in respect of the land in question. Smt. Manbhari died on

19.05.1968. Prior to her death, she had executed a Will on 19.06.1967

which was probated by a District Judge in Delhi on 26.03.1993. It may be

relevant to point out that at the point of time when the Will was executed

by Smt. Manbhari in favour of her grand-daughter (Kiran Diwania), the

appellant herein, the latter was a minor and her guardian was her mother

Smt. Sunder. In 1969-70, consolidation proceedings had been undertaken

in, inter alia, the said village Galibpur. As per the Khatauni Pamaish of

1969-70, the name of the Bhumidhar, in respect of the said holding, was

shown as "Smt Sunder dukhtar Manbhari, Widhwa Ami Lal" (Smt. Sunder,

daughter of Manbhari, widow of Ami Lal).

3. It is alleged by Shri Suraj Bhan that Smt. Sunder, prior to her death

on 27.06.1980, had executed a Will on 12.09.1979, by virtue of which, he

inherited all the rights, title and interest of Smt. Sunder in the land in

question. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that, while the Will

executed by Smt. Manbhari has been proved by virtue of the probate order

dated 26.03.1993, the alleged Will of Smt. Sunder has not been probated

nor is it claimed to be a registered Will. In fact, Suraj Bhan (Respondent

No.5) had moved an application being MPC No.47/2001 in Probate Case

No.106/1991 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for

revocation of the letter of administration granted in favour of Smt. Kiran

Diwania in respect of the estate of Smt. Manbhari alongwith the Will dated

19.06.1967. That application was rejected by an order dated 15.03.2003

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. While doing so, the

learned Additional District Judge, noted as under:-

"16. It has been proved on record and it has not been disputed by the applicant that he was not the legal heir either of Manbhari or Smt. Sunder. Smt Sunder is the daughter of Smt. Manbhari. Non-applicant Smt. Kiran Diwania and one Smt. Rattan were the two daughters of Smt. Sunder and grand daughter of Smt. Manbhari. The applicant has not even made a whisper in his application for revocation that the Will dated 19.6.1967 of Smt. Manbhari, in favour of non-applicant Smt. Kiran Diwania was not the genuine Will of Smt. Manbhari ..."

"18. Taking the case of the applicant from another angle, though the applicant was to prove the Will dated 12.9.79 of Smt. Sunder in his favour either in opposition to the will dated 19.6.1967 of Smt. Manbahri in respect of which letters of administration had been issued in favour of the non-applicant or in the appropriate proceedings for obtaining letters of administration, yet the applicant has preferred not even to file a copy of the Will in these proceedings. It was the non - applicant Smt. Kiran Diwania who filed a photocopy of the said Will purported to have been executed by Smt Sunder in

favour of the applicant, Suraj Bhan. Second paragraph of the Will would show that it contain averments by Smt. Sunder that she was not having any son or a daughter living and was, therefore, making Will in favour of Suraj Bhan, her cousin..."

4. After the death of Smt. Sunder on 27.06.1980, Shri Suraj Bhan

(Respondent No.5) applied for mutation on the basis of the alleged Will

dated 12.09.1979 purportedly executed by Smt. Sunder. At this juncture, it

would be relevant to note that in the Khatauni Pamaish of 1977-78, the

entry with regard to the Bhumidhar was to the following effect:-

"Sunder Daughter of and Manbhari, Widow of Ami Lal, in equal shares, resident of the village"

It is not, however, known as to how this entry came about. Be that as it

may, Suraj Bhan (Respondent No.5) applied for mutation, as mentioned

above. By an order dated 01.10.1982, the Naib Tehsildar allowed mutation

of Smt. Sunder's recorded half share in favour of Smt. Suraj Bhan

(Respondent No.5) on the basis of the alleged Will dated 12.09.1979. It is

also relevant to note that in the application for mutation filed by Suraj Bhan

on 09.09.1982, he had made a false statement to the following effect:-

"My sister named Sunder, daughter of Late Shri Ami Lal, had no issue in her lifetime and as such had executed a 'Will' in my favour as I served her in her evening life in her old days".

The above statement is false on at least three counts. First of all, Smt.

Sunder was not Shri Suraj Bhan's sister. Secondly, Smt. Sunder had two

daughters - Kiran Diwania (the appellant herein) and Ratan Bala. Thirdly,

even the Will dated 12.09.1979 is not free from doubts.

5. Smt. Kiran Diwania had also applied for mutation in her favour.

That application was decided by the SDM / Revenue Assistant (Punjabi

Bagh) on 18.06.1990, whereby mutation of the recorded half share of Smt.

Manbhari was done in favour of the appellant Smt. Kiran Diwania.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.1990, Shri Suraj Bhan

moved an application for rectification before the Tehsildar, who called for

the report of the Halka Patwari and Kanungo. Thereafter, by an order

dated 31.08.1990, the Naib Tehsildar recommended review of the order

dated 18.06.1990 before the SDM / Revenue Assistant. Around the same

time, Smt. Kiran Diwania (the appellant) applied before the SDM /

Revenue Assistant for cancellation of the mutation order dated 01.10.1982

granting mutation of the recorded half share in favour of Shri Suraj Bhan.

7. Smt. Kiran Diwania had also filed an appeal (Appeal No.149/1995)

before the Additional Collector against the very same order dated

01.10.1982. While the proceedings initiated through the rectification

application filed by Shri Suraj Bhan and the cancellation application filed

by Smt. Kiran Diwania were pending before the SDM / Revenue Assistant,

the Additional Collector proceeded with the appeal filed by Smt. Kiran

Diwania being Appeal No.149/1995 and decided the same on 20.12.1995.

By virtue of the said decision, the appeal was allowed and the Additional

Collector held that Smt. Kiran Diwania was entitled to inherit under the

Will dated 19.06.1967 executed by Smt. Manbhari. The order dated

01.10.1982, whereby mutation was granted by the Naib Tehsildar in favour

of Shri Suraj Bhan (Respondent No.5) to the extent of Smt. Sunder's half

share as recorded in the Khatauni Pamaish of 1977-78, was set aside.

8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the

Additional Collector, Shri Suraj Bhan filed a second appeal before the

Financial Commissioner, who disposed of the same by an order dated

26.07.1996 whereby the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the Additional

Collector was set aside and the case was remanded to the SDM / Revenue

Assistant (Punjabi Bagh) before whom, Smt. Kiran Diwania's application

for cancellation of the mutation order dated 01.10.1982 and Shri Suraj

Bhan's application for rectification of the order dated 18.06.1990 were also

pending. The Financial Commissioner directed the SDM / Revenue

Assistant (Punjabi Bagh) to decide all the three matters together on facts

and merits after hearing the parties. The SDM / Revenue Assistant

disposed of the three matters by virtue of an order dated 29.09.2000 in Case

No.377/1990. The SDM / Revenue Assistant held as under:-

"On the basis of arguments made by counsels of both the parties and the facts mentioned above it is revealed that both the parties failed to prove that entries made in the revenue record are wrong and no documentary proof is given by them. It is an undisputed fact that Smt. Manbhar:i. had Willed her entire land in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania and as such no share of land could be transferred by succession to her daughter Smt.Sunder. It is however, pertinent to note that Smt. Sunder had succeeded to IA share of land through inheritance, inspite of the Will executed by her mother in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania.

Apparently, the claim of Smt. Kiran Diwania to the succession of the remaining % share of suit land cannot be legally correct. Further, Smt. Sunder has executed a Will in favour of Shri Suraj Bhan, which has been allowed by the Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 01.10.82.

It is a settled law that a person cannot transfer a better title that he has. Since the genuineness or otherwise of the Will purported to have been made by Smt.Sunder is to be decided by a Competent Authority, various doubts have arisen during the course of the proceedings. This court is, therefore, of the view that 1/2 share land mutated in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania vide order dated 18.06.90 is justified. The order of the Tehsildar, Najafgarh suffers from no weaknesses and, I accordingly accord the Will of Smt. Manbhari and the order is confirmed. Consequently, I order that, the land bearing Khasra Nos.4/22/1(4-9), 22/22/11 (0-7), 24/25(5-10), 25/3/2 (1-4), 8(4-

16), 9(4-10), 10/1 (3-12), 11/2 (3-4) , 12(4-8), 13 (4-8) , 15/1

(2-12) , 19 (4-10), 20 (4-16), 162(1-0), 25/22/1 (0-12), 21/1(0-

12), measuring 50 bighas 16 biswas to the extent of % share in the revenue estate of village Galibpur, be mutated in favour of Smt.Kiran Diwania and the appeal of Shri Suraj Bhan is hereby dismissed."

9. Thereafter, cross appeals were filed by Smt. Kiran Diwania and Shri

Suraj Bhan in respect of the order dated 29.09.2000 passed by the SDM /

Revenue Assistant, Najafgarh, New Delhi in Case No.377/1990. Smt.

Kiran Diwania claimed that she was entitled to have her name recorded in

respect of the entire holding of 50 bighas 16 biswas. The reverse was

claimed by Shri Suraj Bhan. Both the appeals were disposed of by an order

dated 11.06.2004 passed by Shri S.S. Kanawat, Additional Collector,

(South-West), District-Kapas Hera, New Delhi. The Additional Collector

observed that the crux of the issue was whether the Will dated 19.06.1967

executed by Smt Manbhari in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania was legal or

not? The Additional Collector held that the Will executed by Smt.

Manbhari was valid and, therefore, the order dated 01.10.1982 granting

mutation of half share in favour of Shri Suraj Bhan was illegal. He also

held that the order dated 18.06.1990 passed by the SDM / Revenue

Assistant granting mutation in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania only to the

extent of half share in the said holding was bad and that Shri Suraj Bhan

had no right in the said holding and that the entire land ought to have been

mutated in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.06.2004, Shri Suraj Bhan

preferred a second appeal under Section 66 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act

before the Financial Commissioner. That appeal was decided by the

Financial Commissioner on 17.10.2008. By that order, the Financial

Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated

11.06.2004. He upheld the order dated 01.10.1982 passed by the Naib

Tehsildar, whereby mutation had been sanctioned in favour of Shri Suraj

Bhan in respect of Smt. Sunder's half share. The Naib Tehsildar's

recommendation for review of the order dated 18.06.1990 was also upheld

and so was the appeal by Suraj Bhan.

11. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2008, passed by the

Financial Commissioner, Delhi, the present appellant (Smt. Kiran Diwania)

filed the writ petition being WP(C) 7837/2008 which has been disposed of

by the impugned order dated 08.11.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge

of this court. By virtue of the impugned order dated 08.11.2011, the order

dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner, the order dated

11.06.2004 passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated

29.09.2000 passed by the SDM / Revenue Assistant were set aside. The

learned Single Judge, however, directed the Revenue Assistant / SDM,

Najafgarh or the concerned Revenue Assistant to take up Smt. Kiran

Diwania's application under Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act

afresh and, if a report thereupon under Section 23 of that Act has been

obtained or is obtained subsequently, to act upon it and to invoke Section

186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and to refer the question of title

raised by the petitioner on the basis of the Will dated 19.06.1967 by Smt.

Manbhari to the competent civil court to adjudicate upon its "genuineness"

and to obtain the finding and thereafter to proceed expeditiously in

accordance with law, that is, to promptly pass an order on the said

application under Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act afresh. At the

same time, the learned Single Judge directed that in the interregnum, the

position obtaining prior to 1990 shall prevail, that is to say, that the existing

mutation in favour of the respondent (Suraj Bhan) shall hold the field in

terms of the order dated 01.10.1982. The appellant Smt. Kiran Diwania is

aggrieved by these directions and is, therefore, in appeal before us.

12. In the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2008, the learned Single

Judge noted that three questions of law had been raised in the writ petition.

Those questions were as under:-

"(a) Is it not the duty of a revenue court to go into the genuineness of an un-registered and un-probated Will in the proceedings for mutation of title in the 'Records of Rights' even if the 'Testator' and the 'Beneficiary' are complete stranger to each other ?

(b) Whether Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar is vested with the powers of make recommendations for 'Review' of the orders passed by the court of Revenue Assistant during discharge of quasi-judicial function ?

(c) Whether the revenue court can deny the mutation of title of agricultural land acquired by a person on the basis of 'Will' executed by a blood relation and probated by civil court of competent jurisdiction and attained finality after dismissal of revocation proceedings ?"

13. While the second question was not answered by the learned Single

Judge in view of the findings returned on the other issues, the learned

Single Judge did not specifically answer the first and third questions either.

Anyhow, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was that the probate of

the Will dated 19.06.1967 did not mean that the Will was genuine. In this

context, the learned Single Judge had observed as under:-

"6. Upon having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on

record, it transpires that perhaps it had escaped the attention of petitioner's counsel that in this very order of 15.3.2003 the legal position regarding the genuineness of the Will is not to be gone into in the probate proceedings, is noticed and so, any observation made in the said order would not clinch the issue of the genuineness of the Will dt. 12.9.1979 by Smt. Sunder in favour of the Respondent-Suraj Bhan.

7. It is settled position of law that the Probate Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Will put forward as the last Will was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and at the time of its execution, whether the testator was having a sound mind. The probate Court is not at all concerned with the genuineness of the Will. Question of title are neither to be decided by the Probate Court, nor by the Revenue Fora. It is exclusively in the domain of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the Will."

14. While the learned Single Judge was correct in observing that the

probate court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Will put

forward as the last Will was duly executed and attested in accordance with

law and at the time of its execution, whether the Testator was of sound

mind or not, the learned Single Judge fell into error in observing that the

probate court is not at all concerned with the genuineness of the Will. It

appears that the learned Single Judge confused the issue of genuineness of

the Will with that of devolution of title under the Will. Insofar as the

question of a disputed title is concerned, that has to be considered by the

Civil Court. The probate court only determines the execution of the Will.

The probate court is definitely concerned with whether the Will was

genuine or not. The genuineness of the Will is not to be confused with the

question of title. When the Testator himself does not have any title, even

though the Will executed by him may be genuine, the title will not be

transferred to the beneficiary under the Will. In the backdrop of the factual

matrix of the present case, the Will dated 19.06.1967 has been found to be

genuine and it is for this reason that it has been probated. Even the

application for revocation of the Letter of Administration granted in favour

of Smt. Kiran Diwania alongwith the Will dated 19.06.1967 has been

rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by virtue of the order

dated 15.03.2003. We have already alluded to the said order earlier in this

judgment. Thus, insofar as the authenticity and genuineness of the Will

dated 19.06.1967 is concerned, the same stands concluded by the orders

passed by the probate court on 26.03.1993 and the order dated 15.03.2003.

15. The learned Single Judge also fell into error in observing that the

revenue authority ought to have referred the matter to the Civil Court "to

obtain a finding regarding the genuineness of the Will". The learned Single

Judge also directed that the revenue authorities ought to have resorted to

Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act inasmuch as a Will and a

counter-will had been set up by the parties. We have already held that the

genuineness of the Will, after the grant of probate by the District Judge,

insofar as the Will dated 19.06.967 was concerned, was no longer open for

discussion and debate. It is another matter as to what effect that Will would

have had on the Bhumidhari rights of Smt. Manbhari and to what extent

there was a transfer of the Bhumidhari rights of Smt. Manbhari to Smt.

Kiran Diwania or to anybody else in terms of the provisions of the Delhi

Land Reforms Act.

16. Insofar as the Delhi Land Reforms Act is concerned, it is apparent

that Section 20 thereof requires that there should be record-of-rights for

each village, subject to exceptions which may be prescribed. Section 22

provides for the reporting of a succession of transfer or possession. Sub-

section (1) of Section 22 stipulates that, inter alia, any person obtaining

possession as Bhumidhar or Asami by succession or by transfer of any land

in village, which is required to be recorded in the register of the Record of

Rights as per Section 20, is required to report such succession or transfer to

the Tehsildar. On such report being made, the procedure to be adopted by

the Tehsildar is prescribed under Section 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue

Act. The Tehsildar may also adopt the procedure prescribed therein upon

facts which otherwise come to his knowledge. The Tehsildar is required to

make an inquiry. In undisputed cases, if the succession or transfer appears

to have taken place, the Tehsildar is required to direct the Patwari of the

Halka to record the same in the annual register. However, in the case of a

disputed succession or transfer or where the Tehsildar finds that it is in

contravention of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, he is

required to refer the case to the Revenue Assistant, who is to decide it after

such inquiry, as may be prescribed and where necessary, direct the annual

register to be amended accordingly.

17. It is apparent that Smt. Manbhari was a Bhumidhar as both parties,

that is, Smt. Kiran Diwania as well as Shri Suraj Bhan are claiming their

respective Bhumidhari rights through her. The issue to be examined was

whether this was a case of succession insofar as Smt. Sunder was

concerned or whether it was a case of devolution by way of a bequest,

insofar as Smt. Kiran Diwania was concerned. Only if it were a case of

succession, could Suraj Bhan claim the right by virtue of the alleged Will

dated 12.09.1979 allegedly executed by Smt. Sunder in his favour. On the

other hand, if the bequest by Smt. Manbhari in favour of Smt. Kiran

Diwania were to operate, then there was no question of Smt. Sunder

obtaining any rights in the said holding inasmuch as the Will of Smt.

Manbhari would operate immediately on her death on 19.05.1968 and

would accrue to the benefit of Smt. Kiran Diwania. Smt. Sunder is alleged

to have made the Will in favour of Suraj Bhan only on 12.09.1979 and she

could have only made a bequest of what she had. At that point of time, if

Smt. Manbhari's Will was to operate, Smt. Sunder would have had no right,

title or interest in the said holding.

18. The issue in the present case, as pointed our earlier, is with regard to

the record of rights under the Delhi Land Revenue Act. However, the

persons entitled to have their names placed in the record of rights have to

be determined in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Whenever there is

a succession or transfer, it has to be in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act

and if it is so, the same needs to be recorded in the annual register of the

record of rights maintained under the Delhi Land Revenue Act. The issue

is with regard to how the Bhumidhari right of Smt. Manbhari is to devolve.

That issue has to be examined in the context of, inter alia, Sections 48, 50,

51, 53, as also the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Those

provisions are to be examined before it can be determined as to who would

be entitled to have his or her name entered in the record of rights. But, it is

not now open to the revenue authorities or the Civil Court to examine the

issue with regard to the genuineness of the Will dated 19.06.1967 which,

upon the grant of probate stands concluded. The execution of the Will by

Smt. Manbhari in favour of Smt. Kiran Diwania is not open to challenge

any further. Section 227 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 specifically

stipulates that the probate of a Will, when granted establishes the Will from

the death of the Testator and renders valid all intermediate acts of the

Executor as such.

19. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we find that when the

application for mutation was made by Shri Suraj Bhan in 1982, there was

no rival application on behalf of Smt. Kiran Diwania. The application from

Smt. Kiran Diwania came much later and the order on that application was

passed only on 18.06.1990. In this backdrop, it may appear that the

directions given by the learned Single Judge that till the application under

Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act for correction of the mistake or

error in the annual register is decided, the existing mutation in favour of

Shri Suraj Bhan by virtue of the order dated 10.01.1982 would hold the

field, may appear to be reasonable. However, on examining the matter

further, we find that Shri Suraj Bhan, in his application for mutation, had

made a clearly false statement that Smt. Sunder had no children. Therefore,

Shri Suraj Bhan ought not to be permitted to take advantage of this patently

false statement. Consequently, we dispose of the present appeal by holding

that the genuineness of the Will dated 19.06.1967 is no longer in issue. The

only issue is with regard to the transfer / succession of the Bhumidhari

rights of Smt. Manbhari and in what manner the said Will dated 19.06.1967

would operate in the context of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms

Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Act. It is obvious that if the Deputy

Commissioner, examining the matter under Section 26 of the Delhi Land

Revenue Act, feels it appropriate, then he may take resort to Section 186 of

the Delhi Land Reforms Act and frame an issue on the question of title and

submit the record to a competent civil court for a decision on that issue

only.

20. We make it clear that we have purposely not determined the issue of

title and in the present appeal inasmuch as it arose out of the proceedings of

a revenue court which cannot decide issues of title. The present appeal is

disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated 08.11.2011, as

indicated above. To be clear, if a reference has to be made under Section

186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 by the Revenue Court, which

would be examining the appellant's application under Section 26 of the

Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 afresh, the same shall not include the

question of genuineness of the Will. But, shall be limited to the question of

title devolving by way of a bequest or through succession from Smt.

Manbhari in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

Furthermore, the order dated 01.10.1982 is also set aside for the reasons

indicated above.

21. As this matter has gone on for over three decades, we feel that the

Deputy Commissioner should decide the application of the appellant for

correction of the mistake or error in the annual register as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within six months.

With these observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed

of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 01, 2013 dutt