Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 31 August, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The writ petitioner has questioned an order of the Financial Commissioner dated 27.6.2003, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.2.2001 and that of the Revenue Assistant dated 29.4.1991. He seeks a quashing order in respect of those orders issued by the Revenue Authorities.
2. Briefly the facts are that the first respondent had approached the Revenue Assistant under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. He claimed to be the son of one Sh. Shankar who along with three of his brothers, namely, Sh. Pat Ram, Sh. Ram Chand and Sh. Patwari were co-owners and were in possession of various lands situated at village Bamnouli, Tehshil Bamnouli. The first respondent (applicant) had claimed that he had been reflected as an occupant and co-owner in respect of the lands but while recording Bhumidari rights his share as the heir of Shankar had been deleted. Bhumidari rights were claimed as per entries in the revenue records. The application was set down for consideration apparently on various dates. Eventually, on 29.4.1991, the Revenue Assistant declared him as co-Bhumidhar along with other persons to the extent of 1/4th shares in the various khasra numbers mentioned in the order. That order indicates that the respondents to the application were given opportunity but were not present. The entire order sheet of the proceedings commencing from 21.12.1990 are on record.
3. The petitioner, one of the co-owners was felt aggrieved and approached the Deputy Commissioner. The other co-owners were not aggrieved by the inclusion of the petitioner as a co-Bhumidar. The order of the Revenue Assistant to that extent became final. The petitioner's grounds in appeal were that he was not given the proper opportunity to defend the proceedings and that the materials produced were not proper; there were photocopies of Khatoni and other documents relied upon. The Deputy Commissioner disposed off the appeal on 22.2.2001.
4. It appears that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had also urged that the first respondent/applicant, namely, Ram Singh was not the son of Shankar. The Appellate Authority reasoned as follows:
As far as this is concerned, the basic principle is upheld i.e. all the co-owners, whatever rights they had inter se before the commencement of Delhi Land Reform Act 1954, would be entitled to become co-bhumidhar and should be declared as such. The appellant side has been given due opportunities to defend his case and it was free to lead evidence even before this Court but it has failed to satisfy this Court about its claim and no evidence has been produced. As regards the paternity of Shri Ram Singh is concerned, this is an issue, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. The mere production of the copies of birth/death certificate would not help. The appellant should be free to agitate this point before appropriate forum. It appears that appellant has not raised this point on paternity of Ram Singh before lower court. The Ld. Counsel of respondent No.1 asked for dismissal of appeal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. The matter was carried in appeal by the petitioner to the Financial Commissioner who concurred with the reasoning of the Revenue Assistant and Deputy Commissioner.
6. Mr. B.S. Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the proceedings of the lower authorities were irregular. His endeavor, with reference to the order of the Revenue Assistant was that proper opportunity was denied to the petitioner and also that the Revenue Assistant did not appreciate the stand that original documents were not produced.
7. Learned Counsel submitted that the issue of paternity of Ramchander, the applicant was raised first time in 1988 when he claimed to be the son of the Shankar and approached the Revenue Assistant. It was submitted that prior to that time, in all the proceedings, he claimed to be the son of Patwari.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the reasoning adopted by the lower authority and concurrently upheld by the Appellant Authority as well as the Financial Commissioner are unexceptionable. Learned Counsel relied upon the proposition that Revenue Authorities cannot decide issues of title and that such disputes are left for resolution by the civil Court. To that extent, reliance is placed on reasoning of the Revenue Authority/Deputy Commissioner.
9. The application preferred by the first respondent is on record. In that he had clearly claimed to be the son of Shankar, this reflected in the cause title as well as first paragraph of the application under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The written statement (which is on record and has been produced by the petitioner) does not show or denial about the claim of the first respondent to be the son of Shankar. In the absence of such an averment, the Revenue Assistant and the Appellant Authority, in my opinion, correctly arrived at the conclusion that the question as to status, even if raised could not be gone into by them.
10. As far as the other issues are concerned, the order-sheet (a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner) would show that the proceedings had commenced in December, 1990. Right from March 1991 onwards, the parties along with their counsel were present. On 10.4.1991, the first respondent with his counsel and the petitioner was also present. It was recorded that the matter would be listed on 18.4.1991 for arguments and that no further opportunity would be afforded as the case had been at argument stage and number of adjournments had already been given. In these circumstances, when the matter was taken-up subsequently the case was transferred to the Additional District Judge on 29.4.1991. The order dated 29.4.1991 shows that counsel for the petitioner had appeared at the first instance and was asked to appear later on. At the second call, the petitioner and his counsel were not present. In these circumstances, the Revenue Assistant proceeded with the matter and issued the order.
11. Having considered the extract of the order-sheet and the terms of the order dated 29.4.1991, I am of the opinion that no infirmity or illegality has been pointed out; the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but still chose to be absent when the matter was taken up. In any event, he was heard in appeal and even the Appellate Authority granted him opportunity to adduce evidence which he did not avail. Under these circumstances, the charge of procedural impropriety or illegality is unfounded.
12. As far as the question with regard to the paternity of the first respondent and his entitlement is concerned, the first thing which strikes one is the circumstance that the other co-sharers chose to accept the order or determination of the Revenue Assistant. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, the first respondent/applicant could be declared as co-bhumidari; that order has become final had not been upset; nor it can be set aside. Under these circumstances, the observations of the Appellate Authority and the Financial Commissioner that the Revenue Authorities or Revenue Courts are not appropriate forum for deciding the issues of status or paternity which would be properly adjudicatable by the Civil Court is in accordance with law. I find no infirmity with such reasoning. The petitioner did not also raise this issue before the Revenue Assistant, in his defense.
13. In view of the above findings, the petition is unmerited. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
