Delhi High Court
Shri Hazari Lal & Anr. vs Financial Commissioner & Anr. on 17 August, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 586/2010
SHRI HAZARI LAL & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Anurag
Mathur and Mr. Prashant Kumar,
Advocates
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None
% Date of Decision : 17th August, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
CM 14689/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 586/2010 & CMs 14688/2010 & 14690/2010
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 2nd July, 2010 by virtue of which the appellants' writ
petition being WP(C) 4347/2010 has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge in limine.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the writ petition had been filed
challenging the order dated 14th May, 2010 passed by the Financial
Commissioner allowing the revision petitions of respondent no. 2. As a
consequence of the order dated 14th May, 2010, the delay in preferring
the appeal by respondent no. 2 before the Deputy
Commissioner/Revenue Assistant against the order dated 11th February,
1983 stood condoned.
3. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner/Revenue Assistant and the explanation given by
the respondent no. 2 was concocted.
4. It is settled law that the power to condone delay is a discretionary
power which has to be exercised in a judicious manner. It is equally
well settled that in a writ petition filed under Article 226, the Court will
not interfere with the discretion exercised by the subordinate authority
condoning the delay, unless it is shown that the exercise of the said
discretion was either perverse or arbitrary or capricious.
5. In the present case, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge,
the respondent no. 2 is challenging the orders of mutation in favour of
appellants on the basis of a registered sale deed and letter of
administration in favour of his deceased father. It was the case of
respondent No. 2 that a copy of the Will and letter of administration
were found amongst old papers during whitewashing of the house and
immediately thereafter, respondent No. 2 had filed the appeal against
the order dated 11th February, 1983 before the Deputy
Commissioner/Revenue Assistant.
6. The Financial Commissioner has also found that the conduct of
the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, namely, sons of Shri
Rattan Singh was fraudulent inasmuch as even though they were
witnesses to the Will executed in favour of father of respondent no. 2,
yet they had subsequently got the property mutated in their names and
thereafter sold the same to the appellants. Moreover, as rightly pointed
out by the learned Single Judge, the delay by respondent no. 2 in filing
the appeal did not prejudice either the appellants or the sons of Shri
Rattan Singh as the subsequent sale in favour of the appellants had been
executed much prior even to the grant of letter of administration in
favour of the respondent no. 2. In view of aforesaid, the present appeal
and applications, being devoid of merit, are dismissed in limine.
7. At this stage, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul prays that the Deputy
Commissioner/Revenue Assistant be directed to dispose of the appeal
against the order dated 11th February, 1983 as expeditiously as possible.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we feel that this prayer is
reasonable and accordingly, we direct the appellate authority to dispose
of the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of this order.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 17, 2010/rn
