Ashok Kumar And Ors. vs Gaon Sabha Burari And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 656 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 656 Del
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2005

Delhi High Court

Ashok Kumar And Ors. vs Gaon Sabha Burari And Anr. on 26 April, 2005

Author: B Patel

Bench: B Patel, S K Kaul

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

CM No. 2579/2004

1. This application is filed for bringing the heirs WA No. 655/04 of deceased appellant No. 3 on record. Heard. Application allowed. The matter need not be listed before the Registrar on 8th July, 2005.

WA No. 655/2004

2. So far as merits are concerned, this is fourth forum. Initially proceedings commenced before the Revenue Assistant. The matter was taken before the Additional Collector. Thereafter the matter was taken before the Financial Commissioner and the decision rendered by the Financial Commissioner was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Now the appellant is before us.

3. Even though the writ petition has been allowed, it is required to be noted that the appellate court observed that It is not understood as to how the Patwari has recorded the possession of Smt. Parvati Devi when the WA No. 655/04 land was vacant". It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that It was incorrect for the First Appellate Court to hold that the entry in the khasra girdawari for 1967-68 and 1971-72 carried no presumption of truth and had no validity. Even the sole witnesses of the gaon sabha had only stated that the land in dispute is lying vacant, which does not uncontroverterly prove the respondents' contention that the land being 'banjar' or barren or fallow could never be in a cultivatory possession. "It is also observed by learned Single Judge that considering Sections 85 and 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the order of the Financial Commissioner could not be sustained. The appellant is not aggrieved by the order made by learned Single Judge but is aggrieved by the clarification made at the end of the order and as per clarification it is clear that the action was to be initiated within the period of 60 days from the WA No. 655/04 date of the order in view of pendency of the proceedings before various authorities.

4. We find no reason to interfere in the order made by learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal is dismissed.