Delhi High Court
Rajwanti vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 10 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2819/2007
RAJWANTI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. V.P.Rana, Mr.Arvind Rana,
advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Somdutt Kaushik, advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 10.02.2010
1. The petitioner-Ms. Rajwanti had filed a revision petition under
Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 impugning two
orders dated 26th February, 2002 and 17th March, 2005 passed by
the Revenue Assistant.
2. By final order dated 26th February, 2002 it was directed that
the land of the petitioner shall vest in the Gaon Sabha under
Section 81 of the Act. By order dated 17th March, 2005, application
of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 26th February,
2002 on the ground that she was not wrongly made a party, though
she is the recorded bhumidar and in physical cultivatory possession
of the land, was dismissed.
3. Financial Commissioner in the order dated 5th December, 2006
has held that he was not examining merits of the order dated 26th
February, 2002 and the facts stated in the said order. Appeal
WPC No.2819/2007 Page 1
against the order dated 17th March, 2005 has been dismissed on the
ground that it was barred by limitation, noticing that the said order
was passed in the presence of the petitioner and the certified copy
of the same was applied two months after it was passed, on 10 th
May, 2005. Financial Commissioner also observed that liberal
interpretation is given to the clause "sufficient cause" to ensure that
substantial justice to prevails over technical considerations, but in
the present case the petitioner had failed to take due care that the
revision petition was filed within time.
4. The petitioner is a villager and it is apparent that she is not
well educated and can barely sign her name in hindi. The petitioner
had also placed on record medical certificates of the doctor who was
treating her from May 2005 till January 2006. The medical certificate
mention the ailments the petitioner was suffering from. The
respondents had not made any enquiry from the said doctor about
the ailment of the petitioner or about her condition. Order under
Section 81 of the Act has serious and adverse consequences. It is
the case of the petitioner that she was/is a recorded bhumidar and
was/is in actual physical possession of the land. It was also her case
that the land was never used for non-agricultural purposes at any
time and there is no violation of the Act and the Rules. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated
17th March, 2005 by which the application for recall/setting aside of
order dated 26th February, 2002 was dismissed. Order dated 17th
WPC No.2819/2007 Page 2
March, 2005 does not record any reason for dismissing the
application. It is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Learned
counsel for the petitioner in this connection has drawn my attention
to Annexure P-4 and submits that similar applications filed by other
parties for recall of similar orders under Section 81 of the Act passed
by the Revenue Assistant, all dated 26th February, 2002, were
allowed but for some strange and undisclosed reason application of
the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 17th March, 2005. In
fact on merit of the order dated 26th February, 2002, the Financial
Commissioner in the impugned order dated 5th December, 2006 has
observed:-
"No doubt the petitioner has placed on record a
copy of the Khatouni Consolidation to assert her
right over the suit land but in the absence of the
order of the RA dt. 26.2.02 it is also not possible
to determine whether the merits of her claim had
been considered in that order or not. I am hence
constrained to conclude that the petitioner has
not been able to show sufficient cause, for the
delay in filing this petition."
5. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, order dated 5 th
December, 2006 is set aside and quashed. Application for
condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition is allowed and
the matter is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to
decide the revision petition on merits. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
P
WPC No.2819/2007 Page 3
