Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar & Others vs Collector District South West ... on 21 January, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
03
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11309/2009
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
COLLECTOR DISTRICT SOUTH WEST DELHI & ORS. ... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Suman Chaudhary, Adv. for R-3 & 4.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 21.01.2010
The respondent No.4 herein had initiated proceedings under Section 55 of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in the year, 1988. These proceedings have
remained pending since then.
2. The petitioners herein had earlier filed W.P.(C) 1764-75/2006. The Court
took notice of the delay in the proceedings and the manner in which the
proceedings were being held before the Revenue Assistant for last 18 years
without any meaningful progress being made. This writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 31st March, 2006 as the Revenue Assistant had undertaken to
hear the matter on day-to-day basis and complete the proceedings within one
month. Statement of the Revenue Assistant to this effect was recorded.
3. Thereafter, the proceedings were disposed of by the Revenue Assistant on
28th April, 2006. The decision of the Revenue Assistant was made subject matter of
WPC No.11309/2009 Page 1
appeal before the first appellate authority. The allegation of the petitioner is that
some persons, who were not parties in the proceedings before the Revenue
Assistant, were made parties before the first appellate authority. The first
appellate authority by a short order dated 28th January, 2008, has remanded the
entire matter back for fresh trial after recording submissions of the counsel for the
appellant that they were not given opportunity to summon the judicial file of
mutation and the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 filed by them for withdrawal of part claim was not disposed of.
4. The order remanding the matter back to the Revenue Assistant was passed
on 28th January, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that till today no steps
for disposal of the proceedings have been taken by the Revenue Assistant. He
submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the directions given in the order
dated 31st March, 2006, passed in W.P.(C) 1764-75/2006 are reiterated. Counsel
appearing for the private respondents state that they have no objection in case the
directions issued in order dated 31st March, 2006 passed in W.P.(C) 1764-75/2006
are reiterated.
5. Looking at the nature of litigation, which has remained pending since 1988
and also the order passed by this Court dated 31st March, 2006 in W.P.(C)
No.1764-65/2006, the Revenue Assistant is directed to hold day-to-day hearing
and dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months w.e.f. 10th
February, 2010. In case, the Revenue Assistant cannot dispose of the proceedings
within three months, he will move an application before this Court in the present
WPC No.11309/2009 Page 2
writ petition explaining the reason for delay and will also produce original file.
4. It is stated that the matter is fixed before the Revenue Assistant on 10th
February, 2010. The parties will inform the Revenue Assistant of the order passed
today. The writ petition is disposed of.
Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 21, 2010
NA/P
WPC No.11309/2009 Page 3
