Delhi High Court
Kanwar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 20 January, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
9.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3377/2008
KANWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Neeraj Choudhary, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Vipin K. Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar for respondent-Consolidation
Officer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 20.01.2010
1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner, Mr. Kanwar Singh, has challenged order dated 19th
February, 2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner by way of present writ
petition.
3. As per scheme of consolidation for village Khera Kalan, each bhumidar
is to be given a plot of total area of 2-08 out of which residential plot is to be
maximum of 2-02 and industrial plot is to be maximum of 0-06. In case the right
holders (Haqdar) opt not to take an industrial plot, they are entitled to maximum
residential plot of area of 2-08.
4. The scheme also provides that new phirni will be left five gatha wide and
for each residential plot, the main way will be three gatha and sub way will be
two gatha. Cost of excess phirni will not be given to any right holder
(Haqdar)/bhumidar. Within the phirni, excess or deficiency of two biswas
(standard) to any right holder is not acceptable. The scheme stipulates that
mujrai will be deducted compulsorily from all bhumidars in terms of amended
rules dated 12th June, 1996 and the maximum mujrai per bigha shall be 0-02
WPC No.3377/2008 Page 1
biswa. Mujrai, it is stated, shall be same for all bhumidars at the prescribed rate.
5. In view of the said stipulation, it is not possible to accept the contention of
the petitioner that mujrai should not be deducted from the allotment made to the
petitioner within the phirni as the residential plot allotted to him has only one
raasta. Mujrai has to be be compulsorily deducted from each allottee, even if the
residential plot has only one rasta, due to technical reasons and non-availability
of sufficient land in the phirni. In some cases, it has not been possible to ensure
two raastas for each residential plot but this does not make any difference as far
as deduction of mujrai is concerned. The respondent-Consolidation Officer has
explained that the consolidation scheme is still being implemented and in case
mujrai has not been deducted in any case, action will be taken in accordance with
law to deduct the said mujrai even in cases where the allottee has only one raasta.
It is well settled that allotment cannot be made contrary to the scheme of
consolidation. As per the said scheme, mujrai is compulsorily deductible. If any
benefit is given to the petitioner, several others will have to be given the same
benefit. This will require re-working of the entire scheme. To this extent, I do not
find any error in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Of course, the
respondent-Consolidation Officer will be bound to take action to deduct mujrai,
in cases where mujrai has not been deducted. This action should be taken in
accordance with law and in terms of the scheme itself.
6. With regard to the allotment of the petitioner within the phirni, the
respondent-Consolidation Officer has explained that the value of the land within
the extended abadi was fixed at 32 annas and land outside the extended abadi
was valued at 16 annas. As such one standard biswa was valued at 16 annas and
one simple biswa was valued as 32 annas. Petitioner's demand inside the phirni
(extended abadi) was 4 bigha and 16 biswa. Mujrai of 5 biswa was compulsorily
deducted from the demand of the petitioner and, therefore, the total demand of
the petitioner was 4 bigha and 11 biswa. The petitioner had accepted the said
demand without protest or demur. Accordingly, the petitioner was/is entitled to
allotment of 2 bigha and 5/6 biswa within the extended abadi. By mistake the
WPC No.3377/2008 Page 2
petitioner was allotted 2 bigha and 8 biswa in plot Nos. 106/419(min) and
106/424 (min). Thus, the petitioner was by mistake allotted excess of 3 biswa.
Margin of one biswa is permitted under the scheme. This mistake has been
corrected by the said respondents. To this extent also, there is no error or mistake
in the stand and the order passed by the respondent-Consolidation Officer, which
has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner.
7. With regard to respondent No. 3, the Consolidation Officer has explained
that mujrai amounting to 3 bigha and 1 biswa is compulsorily deductible. The
entitlement of respondent No. 3 is 57 bigha and 9 biswa (standard). The
respondent No. 3 was wrongly allotted excess 5 biswa (standard) and, therefore,
remedial steps have been taken to withdraw the excess allotment. Of course,
allotment to the respondent No. 3 within the phirni has to be also in accordance
with the scheme itself and the maximum size provided in the scheme.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 20, 2010
VKR/NA
WPC No.3377/2008 Page 3
