Balbir Singh And Ors. vs Financial Commissioner Of Delhi ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 369 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the well reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 41/1987 dated 10.9.2004.

2. The Financial Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after carefully examining the record and the material placed before him made an order on 11.11.1986. It is clear that the Consolidation Officer on remand withdrew the land from Kila No. 257 from the Khata of Gaon Sabha, which was part and parcel of village pond and allotted the said land to the respondents, who are appellants herein. According to the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner the allotment was contrary to law and sought restoration of Kila No. 257 to the Gaon Sabha. After examining the matter in detail and considering the fact that the allotment was from the village pond land, the Financial Commissioner interfered with the order of the Consolidation Officer. At pages 140 and 141 of the paper book his findings are recorded as under:-

"I come to the conclusion that it would be imperative on my part to issue directions to the learned consolidation officer to withdraw excess allotment from the respondents so far as plotted area is concerned. The deficiency of respondent No. 1 thereafter be made good out of the land to be taken from the respondents and in case the position regarding excess pointed out by the staff is found to be not tallied with the details above or there is some slight difference then efforts should be made to make good the deficiency of respondent No. 1 out of kila numbers 1234 and 1235 if the land is available in them for disbursement among the right-holders of the village and free from any litigation. The construction raised by Ajit Singh in kila number 257 as admitted by both the parties should be allowed to prevail and to that extent he should be accommodated in his demand. The petitioners have claimed in this petition that land measuring 2 bighas and 12 biswas comprised in kila number 257 should be vested in the gaon sabha and not to put for allotment. I agree with their version and the revision stands accepted. Case is remanded to the learned consolidation officer with the directions that first he should ascertain from the records whether actually there is excess allotment or not. Construction raised on a piece of land by Shri Ajit Singh who is in active service should be allowed to prevail whereas excess after adding this area in his demand should be taken out. Case as observed above is remitted to the learned consolidation officer for thorough probe and for the purpose of making up their deficiency of Shri Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 as pointed out by the consolidation officer/Assistant consolidation officer and further excess from respondents

e withdrawn and adjustment if considered to be made among the respondents according to the picture in the records so far as plotted area is concerned to be done with a view to avoid future litigation."

3. It is against the aforesaid order that a writ petition came to be filed by the present appellants. The appellants obtained an order of status quo as conveyed to us and it is in view of this status quo both the parties were required to stay their hands. It was submitted before us that alternative site should be provided to the appellants. For having constructed the houses without lawful allotment and despite the status quo order, the appellants should thank themselves. The Commissioner while passing the order has made observations for alternative site. It is required to be noted that the Apex Court has pointed out about the environment protection and pollution control with regard to water bodies and the duty of the Government to maintain water bodies. The Government cannot shirk its responsibilities merely because villagers are filling the pond with dirt and making it useless site for a pond. It is the duty of the Government to see that wherever there is a water body, it should be maintained as such and no allotment from that land is made to anyone.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 496) has considered this aspect in detail and has pointed out the duty of the Government. It is not sufficient for the village people to say that the pond has become useless and it can be used for residential purposes. The country is facing shortage of water and by and large people have played mischief with the nature (r bodies and, therefore, people are suffering. It is high time for the Government to take action immediately in such matters and to see that water bodies are preserved so that there is no threat to environment.

5. This Court has also given directions in matters relating to water bodies in WP(C) No. 3502 of 2000.

6. In view of what we have expressed hereinabove and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge, the order of the Financial Commissioner is required to be considered and implemented in the proper spirit by the consolidation officer.

7. The appeal and CM No. 15294/2004 being the stay application are dismissed.