Angoori Devi vs Deputy Commissioner South West ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3264 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 15th July, 2010.

+        W.P.(C) No.4624/2010 & CM No.9153/2010 (for interim relief)

%

ANGOORI DEVI                                                      ..... Petitioner
                             Through:     Mr. Dharambir        husband of the
                                          petitioner.

                                        Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SOUTH WEST DISTT.
& ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. N. Waziri, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether 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              NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 2010 of

the respondent no.2 (Tehsildar, Tehsil - Palam, District-South West)

recording Dhaincha crop in Kharif and production of honey in Rabi 2010

seasons with respect to the subject land in the name of the respondents no.5

to 11. It is the case of the petitioner that it is in fact she who is in possession

of the said land and recorded so by the Patwari in the Khasra Girdawari

from Kharif 2004 to Rabi 2009 and continues to be in possession of the said

land. The petitioner has preferred appeal against the order aforesaid of the

Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.1) and which appeal

is stated to be listed next on 13th October, 2010. It is further the case of the

petitioner that in the said appeal she has made an application to restrain the

respondents no.5 to 11 from taking possession of the said land but the

Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 22nd June, 2010 has erroneously

recorded that "no issue regarding any forcible eviction was raised". It is

further the case of the petitioner that in a civil suit instituted by her against

respondents no.5 to 11, the said respondents by an interim order dated 30th

March, 2009 of the Court of the Civil Judge and which order is stated to be

still in force, have already been restrained form forcibly evicting the

petitioner from the said land.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the

following reliefs :-

"(a) Pass writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for keeping the order dated 13th May, 2010 in abeyance and no further effect be given to it in future in the revenue records till the disposal of present appeal.

(b) Pass order for transfer of/transferring the appeal from DC Office, Kapashera South West Distt. to DC Office of North West Distt. Kanjhawala, Delhi.

(c) Issue direction for early disposal of appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably before the recording of next crop, i.e. by 31st August, 2010.

(d) Issue direction to SHO Chhawla that the settled possession of the petitioner be not disturbed/forcibly take over by respondents no.5 to 11 and their family members and relatives."

3. As aforesaid, there is already an order of the Civil Court

protecting the petitioner against forcible dispossession. If at all the

petitioner is aggrieved by any misrecording in the order of the Deputy

Commissioner in the appeal aforesaid preferred by the petitioner, it is

open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner in this

regard.

4. A party cannot at its whim and fancy seek a direction for

expeditious disposal of appeals/proceedings pending before the Revenue

Authorities. This Court would certainly issue directions for

early/expeditious disposal if finds any unusual delay or such delay as is

affecting a party prejudicially. Else, the party which approaches this

Court cannot be given priority over other proceedings, may be for longer

pending before such Authorities. In the present case, no case is made

out for issuing any such direction for expeditious disposal.

5. The petitioner has lastly sought the relief of transfer of appeal

from the Deputy Commissioner before which it is presently pending to

another Deputy Commissioner. Not finding any reason therefor in the

memorandum of petition, the attorney of the petitioner was asked

whether any plea on oath has been taken in this regard. The attorney of

the petitioner could not immediately show any such averment and

sought passover. The attorney of the petitioner has now drawn attention

to the list of dates wherein against the date of 13 th May, 2010 it is

written "Tehsildar mala fidely passed impugned order for recording the

Dhancha crop in the name of respondents no.5 to 10 under the pressure

of DC where R-5 is working". The list of dates is for the convenience of

the Court and is not supported by any affidavit. No relief on the basis of

a statement in the list of dates and which statement/plea is not taken in

the memorandum of petition which is required to be and is supported

with affidavit can be granted. Even otherwise the averment and the

argument raised, is vague. It has not been stated that as to on what post

the respondent no.5 is working in the office of the concerned Deputy

Commissioner. It has not been disclosed as to how the respondent no.5

is in position to exert influence on the Deputy Commissioner or on

officers subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner. This Court on the

basis of such vague averments cannot entertain any doubt that the

Deputy Commissioner concerned, in the exercise of his judicial /quasi

judicial or even administrative function, would not act in accordance

with law or would be prejudicial to the petitioner or favourable to the

respondents no.5 to 11. Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law

Board MANU/SC/0037/1966 it was held "The allegations of malafide

are often more easily made than prove d and the very seriousness of such

an allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility suspicion,

however grave, cannot substitute the evidence. An allegation of

malafide, an indirect motive or purpose cannot be held established

except on a clear proof thereof". Thus no case for grant of transfer also

is made out.

6. There is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

CM No.9152/2010 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 15th July, 2010 bs