Mutation entries are merely fiscal records and cannot create, extinguish, or alter statutory rights of succession.

Ram Singh, the Bhumidhar of 96 bighas in Pandwala Kalan, died in 1965–66. Following his death, the land was mutated in 1966 in equal shares between his son, Chander, and his married daughter, Rajban

Upon Rajban's death, her heirs (the Petitioners) sought mutation of her share, which was contested by Chander's sons (Respondents 2–5). The SDM/Revenue Assistant initially ruled against the Petitioners in 2000, but the Deputy Commissioner reversed this in 2001, citing a long lapse of time and the then-prevailing precedent of Gopi Chand

In 2006, the Financial Commissioner set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order, restoring the SDM's decision on the grounds that succession is strictly governed by statute, not revenue entries

The Petitioners challenged this 2006 order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether a mutation entry, accompanied by long-standing possession and acquiescence, can create an inheritable interest or extinguish statutory claims of other heirs in the absence of a registered instrument

2. Whether the succession of a married daughter is governed by Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLRA) or if the 1966 mutation is protected by the doctrine of prospective declaration of law

3. Whether the devolution of Rajban's alleged interest falls under Section 51 or Section 53 of the DLRA

the Court applied Sections 50, 51, and 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLRA), 1954, which establish a sequential, gender-specific order of succession, notably excluding married daughters from the line of male lineal descendants

revenue entries/mutations are purely fiscal and do not create or extinguish title, citing Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh

Ram Mehar v. Mst. Dakhan, which clarifies that DLRA—not personal law—governs bhumidhari succession

M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, holding that judicial decisions are retrospective unless expressly stated otherwise

The Court reasoned that the DLRA is a complete code for agricultural land succession. Under Section 50, as it stood, Rajban (a married daughter) was not an heir to Ram Singh; therefore, the 1966 mutation was legally erroneous at its inception

The Court rejected the Petitioners' arguments regarding waiver, estoppel, and family settlement, noting that there is "no estoppel against statute" and that rights in immovable property cannot be transferred through mere silence or a fiscal entry without a registered instrument or a specifically proven family arrangement

The Court distinguished Gopi Chand and applied Ram Mehar, clarifying that the Financial Commissioner correctly held that administrative misunderstandings or the passage of time cannot override the statutory line of devolution

Consequently, because Rajban never held a legally cognizable interest, Section 53 (devolution of a female’s independent interest) could not be invoked by her heirs

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Financial Commissioner’s order dated 14th November 2006. The Financial Commissioner’s decision to restore the SDM’s order was found to be without jurisdictional or legal error