Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs Financial Commissioner & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 1465 Del

R-14
  *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 6405/1998

                                       Date of decision: 16th March, 2010

        RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through Ms. Mugdha Pandey, Advocate.

                         versus

        THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                       Through Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocate for Mr.
                       V.K. Tandon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,
                       2 & 3.
                       Mr. R.S. Tomar, Advocate for the respondent
                       No. 4.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                  ORDER

1. The petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma is aggrieved by the decision of the revenue authorities and the Financial Commissioner dismissing his application for recording his name in the revenue records as sole trustee of Piyaoo Khairati Lal on land measuring 3 bigha 16 biswa in revenue estate of village Najafgarh, New Delhi.

2. As per the petitioner himself, one Mr. Khairati Lal Sharma was owner of the aforesaid land and he had constructed dharamshala, well and piyaoo (kiosk) etc. After his death on 17th February, 1962, his wife Ms. Mahadevi was recorded as half owner/bhumidar of the said land.

3. On 11th July, 1969, Ms. Mahadevi executed a registered document, which has been described as a gift deed in the cause title. The said

W.P. (C) No. 6405/1998 Page 1 document records that Ms. Mahadevi was owner/bhumidar of the said property and it is further stated that the doner, i.e., Ms. Mahadevi, had executed and admitted that Piyaoo Khairati Lal was for the welfare of the people and as long as she was alive, she would look after the said piyaoo and after her death her grandson Mr. Janardan or his heirs or nominee would look after the said piyaoo.

4. The said document cannot in strict sense be regarded as a gift deed as there is no donee and there is no acceptance. The intention behind the document is that the property, i.e., said piyaoo should be used and was for the welfare of people at large and the said document is a declaration to the said effect. The executor, i.e., Ms. Mahadevi had stated that she would look after the piyaoo to ensure that the same was used and utilized for the welfare of the people and it is stated that after her death, her grandson Mr. Janardan or his heirs or nominee would ensure and would carry out the said object and purpose.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. Janardan, respondent No. 4 herein executed a deed of appointment in favour of the petitioner to look after Piyaoo Khairati Lal and he had become sole trustee of the said piyaoo vide document dated 7th June, 1993. Photocopy of the said deed reveals that the petitioner was even conferred power to sell, dispose of, convert, invest and utilize the said property and use the income or corpus in any manner he deemed fit and proper. Respondent No. 4 denies having executed the said deed of appointment but the petitioner claims that this deed of appointment is valid and was in fact executed.

6. I need not examine the validity and genuineness of the deed of appointment dated 7th June, 1993 for two reasons. Firstly, in terms of the document dated 11th July, 1969 executed by Ms. Mahadevi the piyaoo had been dedicated to the public at large and was used for the welfare of the

W.P. (C) No. 6405/1998 Page 2 people. Mr. Janardan, his heirs or nominees were only to ensure the said utilization. No title or right to collect income or rent etc. was given to Mr. Janardan and, therefore, the alleged transfer/deed of appointment dated 7th June, 1993 is clearly beyond what was stated and provided in the document dated 11th July, 1969 executed by Ms. Mahadevi. Secondly, the revenue authorities had initiated proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and vide order dated 24th April, 1998 the said land stands vested in the Gaon Sabha. This order dated 24th April, 1998 has been placed on record. Neither the petitioner nor Mr. Janardan or any other person has challenged and questioned the said order before the appellate authority and the vesting is, therefore, complete.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

        MARCH 16, 2010
        VKR




W.P. (C) No. 6405/1998                                                   Page 3