Bhim Singh vs Tehsildar (Narela) & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4381 Del

$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Date of decision: 17th September, 2010

+                         W.P.(C) 7312/2008

%

      BHIM SINGH                                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. K. N. Popli, Advocate.

                     Versus

      TEHSILDAR (NARELA) & ORS          ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. V. K. Tandon, 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 by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order

dated 25th April, 2008 of the respondent No. 1, Tehsildar Narela on the

application of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),

Kanjhawala, Delhi under Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act,

1954 and seeks direction to the said Deputy Commissioner to fill up

Form P-5 and enter the name of the petitioner in the said Form with

respect to agricultural land bearing khasra No. 76/8/1/1 (1-08), 26(0-

01) & 27(0-01) total 1 bigha 10 biswa, situated in the Revenue Estate

of Vill. Khera Khurd, Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioner that

W.P. (C) 7312/2008 Page 1/4 though under Section 26 of the Act (supra) it is only the Deputy

Commissioner who is empowered to correct any mistake or error in the

Annual Register and for which purpose the application was made by

the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, but the said application was

wrongly considered by the Tehsildar and dismissed vide order dated

25th April, 2008.

2. On enquiry as to how this petition is maintainable since the

remedy against such orders is provided in the Act itself, the counsel for

the petitioner contends that the said remedies are not suitable since the

order has been passed by an Authority not authorized to do so.

3. The counsel also informs that the name of the petitioner has been

entered in the Khasra Girdawari for the subsequent years.

4. The counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert that the

application made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner was

required to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner only and is

unable to show the authority under which, the same has been decided

by the Tehsildar Narela.

5. I am, however of the view that no directions to enter the name of

the petitioner in pursuance to the said application can be issued by this

Court. According to the petitioner also the application is required to be

considered by the Deputy Commissioner and till the Deputy

Commissioner has considered the same, the question of directing the

Deputy Commissioner to enter the name does not arise.

W.P. (C) 7312/2008 Page 2/4

6. The Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO (1980) 2

SCC 191 held that "ordinarily, where the High Court exercises

certiorari jurisdiction it merely quashes the offending order and the

consequential legal effect is that but for the offending order the

remaining part of the proceedings stands automatically revived before

the inferior Court or tribunal with the need for fresh consideration and

disposal by a fresh order; the High Court does not substitute its own

order for the order quashed by it. There are however other situations

where the adjudication by the High Court establishes a complete want

of jurisdiction in the Court or tribunal below to entertain or take the

proceedings at all and in such cases where the High Court quashes the

proceeding there is no revival at all. But even though in the former

case the High Court does not substitute its own order after quashing the

offending order, it has power to pass such further orders as the justice

of the case requires. When passing such orders the High Court draws

on its inherent powers to make all such orders as are necessary for

doing complete justice between the parties. The simple fact of the

institution of litigation by itself should not be permitted to confer an

advantage on the party responsible for it."

7. The Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai

(2003) 6 SCC 675 held that "in a writ of certiorari the High Court may

quash the proceedings of the tribunal, authority or Court but may not

substitute its own findings or directions in lieu of the one given in the

W.P. (C) 7312/2008 Page 3/4 proceedings forming the subject matter of certiorari."

8. The petition therefore is disposed of quashing the order dated

25th April, 2008 of the Tehsildar, Narela on the application of the

petitioner under Section 26 of the Act (Annexure P-3 of the writ

petition) and further directing the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),

Kanjhawala, Delhi to dispose of the said application in accordance with

law within two months of the date the petitioner appears with the copy

of this order before the Deputy Commissioner.

No order as to costs.

Dasti to counsel for the parties.

                                          RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J


SEPTEMBER 17, 2010
cl




W.P. (C) 7312/2008                                             Page 4/4