2007 (4) TMI 778 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to mutation of land in Revenue Records, validity of a Will, entitlement to compensation under Land Acquisition Act, and dismissal of a civil suit challenging the Will.

Mutation in Revenue Records:
The High Court confirmed the mutation of land in Revenue Records in favor of respondent No. 5, based on a Will purportedly executed by deceased Ratni Devi. The appellants alleged that the mutation was done without notice to them and without following principles of natural justice. Appeals to higher authorities were unsuccessful, leading to a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the mutation was done based on the Will and did not find any illegality in the actions of the Revenue Authorities.

Validity of Will:
The main question revolved around the genuineness of the Will dated April 14, 1989, allegedly executed by Ratni Devi in favor of respondent No. 5. The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity and genuineness of the Will should be decided by a competent Civil Court. A civil suit challenging the Will was dismissed on grounds of limitation, with an appeal pending in the High Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the validity of the Will, stating that it should be decided by the High Court where the matter is pending.

Entitlement to Compensation:
The appellants, as heirs of Ratni Devi, claimed entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, asserting their rights as the real heirs. Despite their claim, a substantial amount was paid to respondent No. 5. The Supreme Court did not delve into the issue of compensation, stating that all questions regarding entitlement would be decided in appropriate proceedings by competent authorities or courts without being influenced by the present judgment.

Dismissal of Civil Suit:
The appellants filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the Will but faced dismissal on the grounds of limitation. An appeal against the dismissal was pending in the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that it did not express any opinion on the correctness or genuineness of the Will. The Court maintained that the pending appeal in the High Court would be decided on its own merits without influence from the current judgment. All contentions of the parties were kept open for determination in appropriate proceedings.