Shri Tariff Singh Dabas vs Financial Commissioner And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 645 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

Page 1502

1. In the year, 1993, a notification was issued under Section 14 of the East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 for consolidation of holdings in village Kanjhawala. On 14.11.1996, draft Consolidation Scheme was announced by the Consolidation Officer in the village. After finalising the scheme, in the year 1998, repartition was carried out under Section 21 of the said Act. Petitioner demanded a plot on the Northern side of the village. His other family members also demanded a plot on the said side. Obviously, aim was for the entire family to be residing in adjoining houses.

Page 1503

2. Consolidation Officer allotted plot No. 142/499 admeasuring 2 bigas and 2 biswas to the petitioner, but on the opposite side.

3. On 30.6.1997, petitioner filed objections under Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of the Act against the allotment made. On 28.2.2000, the Consolidation Officer decided the objections and allotted another plot to the petitioner, which was again not to the liking of the petitioner. Petitioner felt that the allotment was illegal. He filed the revision petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer. The Revision was allowed vide order dated 20.6.2003. Plot No. 142/94/15 was allotted to the petitioner.

4. Respondent No. 4 questioned the legality of the order dated 20.6.2003 by filing the writ petition before this Court. His grievance was that he was not heard. The said writ petition which was registered as WPC No. 4473/03 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2004 Matter was remanded before the Financial Commissioner with a direction that respondent No. 4 be heard.

5. Respondent No. 4 was accordingly imp leaded as a party before the Financial Commissioner. In the remanded proceedings one Ratan S/o Net Ram sough impleadment. Vide order dated 5.4.2005, the Financial Commissioner dismissed application filed by Ratan S/o Net Ram for being imp leaded as a party.

6. Order dated 5.4.2005 was challenged before this Court by and under WPC No. 8600/05.

7. When WP(C) No. 8600/05 was pending, Revision Petition No. 43/2003 - CA filed by respondent No. 3 was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 5.8.2005.

8. In his Revision Petition, respondent No. 3 had sought inclusion of land comprised in khasra No. 38/6 and 38/7 (pre-consolidation) within the extended abadi. Vide order dated 5.8.2005 the Financial Commissioner accepted the request of respondent No. 3 and aforesaid lands were included within the extended phirny.

9. WP(C) No. 8600/05 was disposed of on 17.11.2005 directing the Financial Commissioner to dispose of revision petition filed by the petitioner after taking note of the fact that additional land was available within the extended abadi.

10. In the said revision petition filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 praying that he should be imp leaded as a party in the revision.

11. Basis of his claim was that he was the recorded owner of the land comprised in khasra No. 38/6 and 38/7 and since petitioner claimed allotment of a plot on said land, he ought to be imp leaded as a party.

12. Petitioner opposed the said application by pleading that land comprised in khasra No. 38/6 and 38/7 was in the pre consolidation holding of respondent No. 3. Said fact did not entitle him to be imp leaded as a party for the reason after inclusion of land within the extended abadi it had to be allotted to those whose claims remained unsatisfied for allotment of residential plots. Claim of respondent No. 3 for allotment of a residential plot was satisfied when 3 bigas and 8 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 142/94/6 (2- 2), 143/241 (0-6), 142/311 min (0-4) and 142/210 min (0-16), total measuring 3 bigas and 8 biswas was allotted. Petitioner stated that as per the scheme and the Consolidation Rules, no person could be allotted more than 2 bigas and 8 biswas of land within the village abadi. He pointed out that respondent No. 3 had already been allotted land in excess within the abadi by one biga.

13. Vide order dated 16.2.2006, the Financial Commissioner imp leaded Page 1504 respondent No. 3 as a party.

14. Reason why respondent No. 3 was impeaded is as under:-

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels. I find that it is true that during the hearing of the application for impleadment of Gaon Sabha, it was contended on behalf of Gaon Sabha that it would not be in a position to give double the agricultural land in case the petition of the applicant was allowed and his land included in Phirni. It is also true that on the request of Gaon Sabha, the applicant had given an affidavit that he would not claim double the agricultural land in lieu of his land in case it was included in Phirni. In any case, he has to be given residential and industrial plot out of the suit land. The remaining land could then be available for distribution to others only if he is given double the value of agricultural land in lieu thereof. However, if the Gaon Sabha is unable to give him the requisite value of agricultural land as was indicated during the impleadment application of the Gaon Sabha, the entire suit land in Khasra No. 38/6 and 38/7 belonging to the applicant may have to remain with him.

15. In Delhi, consolidation is governed by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The procedure to be followed is that a draft scheme has to be notified under Section 19 and objections invited. After considering the objections, the same have to be disposed of and the draft scheme has to be confirmed under Section 20. Thereafter, repartition is effected under Section 21.

16. To give teeth to the Act, Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules 1959 have been framed. Clause J of Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under:-

(J)(i) Bhumidar whose land has been included in the extension of the village abadi may be given agricultural land worth two times the value of land surrendered.

(ii) Bhumidar who has applied for allotment of plot in the extension of the village abadi shall surrender in exchange during consolidation two times the size of agricultural land subject to the size of plot and his eligibility.

(iii) The maximum size of a residential plot to be provided in the extension of the village abadi to a bonafide resident of the village shall be two bighas and eight biswas out of which the ?bhumidar? can take industrial plot up to a maximum size of six biswas. Allotment of such plot shall be done through draw of lots.

(iv) Wherever necessary, the maximum ?Muzarai? that may be deducted shall be two biswas per bigha only (when adequate gaon sabha land is not available in the village for common purpose).

17. A perusal of Clause (iii) of Rule 6(J) shows that within the extended abadi, a villager is entitled to a maximum of 2 bigas and 8 biswas of land. Further, as per Clause (i) of the said Rule a Bhumidar whose land has been included in the extension of the village abadi is entitled to land worth two times the value of the land surrendered.

18. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 has been allotted land within the extended abadi much more than 2 bigas and 8 biswas. He has accepted the Page 1505 said allotment. He can have no further claim to any other land within the extended abadi. Land allotted to respondent No. 3 within the abadi is not the subject matter of any claim by any party.

19. Only question which arises for consideration is whether after including pre consolidation holding comprised in khasra No. 38/6 and 38/7 within the extended abadi, merely because said lands belonged to respondent No. 3, can he join in the proceedings pending before the Revenue Authorities where claim of the applicant before the Revenue Authorities is that his claim for land within the extended abadi be satisfied?

20. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 3 cannot be impeaded as a party in the said proceedings for the reason in the said proceedings claim of land owners for satisfaction of their claims for allotment of land within the abadi would be adjudicated.

21. Reasoning given by the Financial Commissioner is that if land of respondent No. 3 is included within the extended phirny, he would have to be given land outside the phirny of twice the value of the land included within the phirny and since Gaon Sabha states that so much land may not be available outside the phirny, respondent No. 3 must be permitted to join in the litigation for, according to the Financial Commissioner, he may have to be given this land which is included within the phirny.

22. The perversity in the reasoning is writ large. Under no circumstances can respondent No. 3 be given land more than 2 bigas and 8 biswas within the extended phirny. He has already got more than said share. Under no circumstances can respondent No. 3 be allotted the land in question.

23. Further, the order passed by the Revenue Authorities including the land in question within the extended phirny i.e. amendment of the scheme of consolidation has attained finality. As is to be noted, respondent No. 3 himself wanted the aforesaid land to be included within the phirny. It was at that stage that Gaon Sabha could have objected by pleadings that if the land in question is included within the phirny, to satisfy the requirement of law and the claim of respondent No. 3, twice value of land outside had to be allotted to respondent No. 3 and that so much land was not available. At such objections being filed by the Gaon Sabha, matter would have been decided with a reference to availability of land outside the phirny. But this has not happened.

24. Learned counsel for parties did not dispute that as per the scheme finalized, enough Gaon Sabha land is available outside the phirny. That apart, all those who would get plots within the phirny i.e. plots on the land in dispute which has been included within the extended phirny would have to surrender twice the value of their pre consolidation holdings outside the extended phirny. This would mean that even from non Gaon Sabha land outside the phirny respondent No. 3 could be given land outside the phirny.

25. In any case, the principal focus of inclusion of the writ land within the extended phirny having attained finality and that under no circumstances can respondent No. 3 get any further land within the extended phirny has been lost sight by the Financial Commissioner. Under no circumstances can respondent No. 3 have any interest in the writ land.

26. Legal position is clear. A party who is likely to be affected by any decision in a judicial proceeding is a necessary party and a party whose presence is Page 1506 necessary for adjudicating a dispute, though he may not be affected by the final decision, is a proper party.

27. Given the facts as noted above, respondent No. 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the revision filed by the petitioner.

28. The writ petition stands disposed of quashing impugned order dated 16.2.2006. Application filed by respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10, scheme implement in the revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

29. No costs.