Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mutation order in Jai Pal And Ors. vs Randhir Singh And Ors. on 22 February, 2012Matching Fragments
22.02.2012
1. The impugned order of 23rd February, 2011 of Financial Commissioner, Delhi refusing to condone extra-ordinary delay of fifty one years in filing of an appeal under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 passed by the concerned Tehsildar, is assailed in this petition.
2. The challenge to the aforesaid impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the void orders can be challenged anytime therefore the bar of limitation cannot be raised against the petitioners. According to the petitioners' counsel, the concerned Collector vide order of 15th July, 2009 (Annexure P-9) had rightly cancelled the aforesaid mutation order of 22nd February, 1958, as the Respondents herein were not the legal heirs of Late Shri Ramji Lal in W.P.(C) No.2047/2011 Page 1 terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntala Devi vs. FCI & Ors., 161(2009)DLT 300, to contend that for correcting the Annual Register, provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted. It was pointed out by petitioner's counsel that Section 68 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 has no application as the appeal of the Respondents against the collector's order (Annexure P-1) was not maintainable.
7. Sweeping observations of the Appellate Authority i.e. the concerned Collector in order (Annexure P-1) of there being no requirement of the petitioners filing an application for condonation for delay, while treating the impugned mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 being null and void, in spite of petitioners' filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of fifty one years, is clearly unsustainable, as it runs in the face of Rule 142 of The Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, which deals with mutation and it reads as under:-
„142. Report not to be deemed invalid-No report shall be deemed tobe invalid merely by reason of some of the particulars required to be specified by Rule 139(1) having been omitted or by reason of any of such particulars having been incorrectly stated.‟
8. It is relevant to note that the impugned mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 was followed by subsequent mutation order of 15th April, 1983 on account of death of Smt. Lado and when Smt. Nihal Kaur had died, mutation order of 25th May, 1999 was passed in favour of her legal heirs. Not only this, again on 21st July, 2003, mutation order was passed in favour of the respondents. All this along, petitioners had remained silent. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not put to notice when afore-noted subsequent mutation orders were passed. It stands noted in the appellate order (Annexure P-1) that the subject lands stood acquired and compensation in respect thereof was awarded in the year W.P.(C) No.2047/2011 Page 4 2008-09 and when respondents had filed their objections to seek their shares on the strength of the mutation of the year 2003 in their favour, then only the petitioners woke up and had belatedly filed an appeal under Section 64 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in the year 2009.
9. Instead of explaining inordinate delay of fifty one years in filing the appeal against initial mutation order of 1958, and by maintaining silence in respect of subsequent mutation orders, as noted hereinabove, petitioners have simply averred in the writ petition that in the year 2009 they became aware that the mutation of the subject land is also in favour of the respondents. It is not averred in the writ petition by the petitioners as to how they became aware of it. Pertinently, petitioners are silent about the subsequent mutation orders, noted herein above.