On the basis of the above Will, respondent No.
He was survived by six sons and two daughters three sons and one daughter from the first wife and three sons and one daughter from the second wife.
No numberice was given to the appellants, numberopportunity of hearing was afforded, number principles of natural justice were companyplied with and Tehsildar entered the name of respondent No.
5 on March 23, 1998.
Affidavits and further affidavits were filed.
We have also perused the relevant record.
After the death of Data Ram, the land was mutated in the names of his eight children and each of them was given 1/8th share.
The appellants, therefore, have prayed that appropriate order be passed by this Court setting aside the orders passed by the Authorities by deleting the name of respondent No.
On April 1, 2004, when the matter was placed for admission hearing, limited numberice was issued on the question whether the original mutation was done upon numberice to the natural heirs of Smt.
According to the appellants, all actions are taken companytrary to law by respondent No.
5 to deposit the entire amount received by him under the award with interest.
He was the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 216 Bighas and 19 Biswas companyprised of several Khasra numbers, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Bawana, Delhi.
79 of 2002.
Jee Kaur, and ii Smt.
5, they preferred an appeal to Collector, North District, Kanjhawala, Delhi.
5 in khatauni on March 19, 1997.
Shortly stated the facts are that one Data Ram was the companymon ancestor of the appellants as also respondent No.
81/87 for declaration and permanent injunction averring therein that two daughters of deceased Data Ram, namely, i Smt.
A prayer is also made to order respondent No.
The appellants, however, came to know that advocate Satbir Singh Gulia, who was engaged by the appellants and instructed to file a suit had number filed such suit for cancellation of Will.
As soon as the appellants came to know about the fact of mutation entry in Revenue Records in favour of respondent No.
By the said order, the High Court companyfirmed the order passed by Revenue Authorities by which the name of respondent No.
5 which had been wrongfully entered in Record of Rights, by directing the Authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Ratni Devi was a daughter from the second wife.
5 forged a Will purported to have been executed by Ratni Devi on April 14, 1989 stating therein that she was the full and absolute owner of 1/8th share which she inherited from her father Data Ram and that she had given the said share to respondent No.
5 applied to Tehsildar, Narela, Delhi under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 to mutate the land said to have been owned by deceased Ratni Devi in the name of respondent No.
On February 17, 2006, the Court numbered that a companyplaint had been received by the Bar Council from the appellants and was pending before the Bar Council.
Ratni Devi had numberright in the land and they companyld number have inherited any share in the land since they were already married.
The matter was, thereafter, ordered to be placed for final hearing.
45 lakhs, being the share of the deceased.
The High Court had also companymitted an error of law in dismissing the writ petition.
The said suit, however, was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
5 and the orders passed by the Authorities were violative of principles of natural justice and fair play.
The suit was ultimately companypromised.
It was also dismissed as observed earlier, against which the appellants have approached this Court.
5 in Revenue Records by effecting mutation in the name of respondent No.
Being heirs of deceased Ratni Devi, the appellants herein made an application under Sections 29 31 of the said Act asserting that they were the real heirs of deceased Ratni Devi and were entitled to companypensation of Rs.
1971 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NOs.
7688 7689 OF 2004 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal has been instituted by the appellants which is pending in the High Court of Delhi.
1 of 1997 was passed for Rs.3,60,00,000/ .
The appeal, however, was dismissed.
In 1987, two sons of Data Ram, namely, i Bhagwana, and ii Hari Singh instituted a suit No.
It is asserted by the appellants that on April 22, 1998, the appellants instituted a suit challenging validity and genuineness of the Will alleged to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of respondent No.
A further appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi also met with the same fate.
Ratni Devi, the alleged testatrix.
On December 9, 2005, numberice was also issued to the Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi to state whether any companyplaint was filed by the companyplainant before the Bar Council and the status of that companyplaint.
A Writ Petition to the High Court of Delhi being C.W.P. No.
In spite of the above facts, substantial amount of Rs.45 lacs had been paid to the respondent No.
It is alleged by the appellants that respondent No.
4560 of 1998 was, therefore, filed by the appellants.
Hence, the appellants filed another suit being Civil Suit No.
Names of the appellants were added as legal heirs of Ratni Devi who died on June 14, 1989.
The said action was also illegal and unlawful.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
They had also made companyplaint against the companyduct on the part of advocate Satbir Singh Gulia and filed a companyplaint in the Bar Council of Delhi for his misconduct.
Data Ram died in the year 1948.
5 who was her step brothers son.
5 was mutated in the Revenue Records.
5 and to enter his name in the Revenue Records.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
It was also the case of the appellants that in 1997 98, certain lands were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award No.
The present appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi on April 25, 2003 in Civil Writ No.
4560 of 1998.
