Delhi High Court
Tara Chand vs Duli Chand And Ors. on 6 September, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
CMS 14717/2004 (Restoration)
After hearing counsel for the parties, the writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is accordingly disposed off.
W.P.(C) 1225/1979 & CM 14719/2004
1. The writ petitioner has impugned an order dated 2.3.1979 as well as another order dated 19.12.1978, both issued by the Additional Collector, Delhi during consolidation proceedings.
2. The undisputed facts which led to the present litigation are that during consolidation proceedings in village Ghooman Hera, the petitioner appears to have been allotted some lands, including Kila No. 40/20. He had apparently objected objection to it and approached the Settlement Officer by an appeal, against an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 9.8.1975. In that appeal, the petitioner suggested that Kila No. 40/20 be withdrawn from him and allotted to the Gaon Sabha and he be allotted portion of Kila No. 39/17 and Kila No. 39/24 (which were to be withdrawn from the contesting respondents Rati Ram and Daya Chand).
3. The Settlement Officer remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for proper adjudication. In line with his request, the Consolidation Officer appears to have issued an order on 8.1.1976. The order inter alia recorded that the areas withdrawn from the contesting respondents Paras Ram for 39/17(min) and 39/29 (east) of a total extent of 14 biswas, the petitioner's area withdrawn was 40/20 (min-east) of the same extent, in stead he was allotted 39/17-24 of an identical extent.
4. The petitioner appealed to the Settlement Officer alleging that he had not consented to the arrangement recorded by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer, after considering the materials concluded that the changes effected by the Consolidation Officer were with the consent of the parties. He also recorded that the appellant/petitioner agreed to allotment of Kila No. 39/24 but not the allotment of Kila No. 39/17, and the value of both lands were identical. The Settlement Officer considered the submissions of the petitioner on the merits and rejected the appeal.
5. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer dated 25.9.1976, he appealed to the Additional Collector under Section 21(4). The Additional Collector disposed off the appeal being No. 59/77 on 19.12.1978 inter alia recording as follows:
I have heard the learned Counsels representing both the parties and have gone through the records carefully. From the record it is revealed that the allotment made by the C.O. to the parties were on the basis of the alleged compromise between them. In his appeal under Section 21(3) appellant's main grievance was withdrawal of killa No. 48/7 from him and allotment of killa No. 40/20 to him. The reason being that there is one water outlet under the puce road in killa No. 40/19,20 and in the northern side of the chak allotted to the appellant is the area of Gaon Sabha measuring about 15 killas. Rainy water of this land goes to the pond situated on the east of puce road through this water outlet in killa No. 40/19.20.
Considering the genuine demand of the appellant for allotment of killa No. 48/7 to him and withdrawal of killa No. 40/20 I hereby order that killa No. 48/7 (1-17) be allotted to appellant after withdrawing the same from respondent Duli Chand. In lieu of this killa land of killa Nos. 49/4,5 & 48/min(1-17) be withdrawn from the appellant and be allotted to Duli Chand and Mange respondents. Since the appellant is unhappy with the allotment of killa No. 40/20 to him, I hereby remand the case back to learned SO(C) with the directions that this killa be withdrawn from him and be allotted to Gaon Sabha and in lieu of this land suitable land belonging to Gaons Sabha be allotted to the appellant. So far as allotment of killa No. 39/24 to the appellant is concerned, the appellant has got no preferential right over it and his request cannot be acceded to. Moreover in this case the allotment made to the parties was as per their promise.
6. It would thus be clear that the petitioner's contention that the matter had not been considered on merits but that the lands were wrongly allotted to him on the basis of concession were considered and to an extent redressed in as much as the Additional Collector, in stead of insisting that the petitioner should take Kila No. 39/17, directed that Kila No. 48/7 ought to be allotted to him. The petitioner's application for review was rejected on 2.3.1979.
7. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, learned senior counsel endeavored to submit that the entire basis of the allotment impugned by the petitioner in these proceedings was on the assumption of a consent which was never forthcoming. It was submitted that once it is held that there was no consent as is evident from repeated attempts by the petitioner to secure lands of his choice the entire subtratum and basis of the allotment of Kila No. 39/17 should have been set aside.
8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and the materials on record. The earlier appeal preferred by the appellant had, in categorical terms, proposed that Kila No. 40/20 be withdrawn from him and allotted to Gaon Sabha and in stead he allotted Kila No. 39/17-24 to an identical extent. After remand, the Consolidation Officer appears to have by and large accepted this contention. The only objection was that the petitioner stated thereafter that this course of action did not meet his consent.
9. A reading of the order of the Settlement Officer in first appeal and the Additional Collector, in the further appeal under Section 21(4) disclose that both the authorities applied their mind and did not merely reject the petitioner's case on the ground of lack of consent. In fact, the Additional Collector not only considered the materials and contentions but also proposed a course of action which implicitly accepted the petitioner's grievance and sought to redress it. He directed allotment of Kila No. 48/7 and has furnished reasons, even while affirming the reasons of the Settlement Officer as to why Kila No. 39/24 could not be allotted.
10. I see no infirmity in the reasoning of the lower authorities. It is well settled the Court sitting in judicial review cannot re-appreciate the materials on record and arrive at contrary findings; in the absence of any perversity in approach or illegality the orders of quasi-judicial authorities, in this case being concurrent in nature - have to be affirmed. A writ court does not examine the merits of a decision, as an appellate authority.
11. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition is un-merited; it is dismissed. Rule discharged.
