SURAJ BHAN vs FINANCIAL COMMNR. .

The Supreme Court held that the mutation of land in favor of respondent No. 5 was invalid due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the Tehsildar's decision. The Court emphasized that under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, proper procedures must be followed for mutation, and the alleged Will was deemed forged. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the appellants' rights to the land and compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, affirming their status as legal heirs of Ratni Devi.