Delhi High Court
Baljeet Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 22 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd December, 2011
+ LPA No.1046/2011
% BALJEET SINGH ............Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. Devesh Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi & Ms. Nitika
Agarwal, Advocates for R-1&2.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Kuldeep Balhara, Adv. for R-3.
AND
+ LPA No.1047/2011
% ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ............Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. Devesh Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi & Ms. Nitika
Agarwal, Advocates for R-1&2.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Kuldeep Balhara, Adv. for R-3.
LPA Nos.1046-47/2011 Page 1 of 7
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. These intra court appeals are preferred against the common order
dated 31st October, 2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C)
No.492/2007 and W.P.(C) No.693/2007 preferred by the appellants
respectively. The said writ petitions were preferred impugning the orders,
both dated 14th December, 2006 of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi
allowing the Revision Petitions under Section 42 of the East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
preferred by the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas in each of these appeals. With
the consent of the counsel for the parties, we have at the admission stage
itself heard the appeals finally.
2. The appellants claim to be Bhumidhar and resident of Village-
Kanjhawla, Delhi where consolidation proceedings were commenced vide
Notification dated 8th September, 1993, Consolidation Scheme framed and
announced on 14th November, 1996 and confirmed on 24th April, 1997. In
the said consolidation proceedings plot No.144/32 was allotted to the
respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas in lieu of old Khasra No.32/3. The appellants
preferred objections under Section 21(2) of the Act claiming possession of
Plot No.144/32 and which objections were dismissed by the Consolidation
Officer vide orders dated 25th February, 2000. The appellants preferred
appeals to the Settlement Officer and which appeals were allowed vide
orders dated 1st November, 2002. The Settlement Officer held that the
Consolidation Officer had not properly considered the objections of the
appellants and had dismissed the same merely on the ground that the Plot
No.144/32 had been given to the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas; it was
observed that if the appellant/appellants were entitled to the said plot,
allotment thereof to the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas would be immaterial.
Accordingly, allotment of Plot No.144/32 in favour of the respondent no.3
Sh. Rohtas was withdrawn and the said plot was allotted in equal shares to
the appellants and the Consolidation Officer directed to make necessary
changes in the revenue record.
3. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders of the Settlement Officer, the
respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas had preferred the revision petitions aforesaid
before the Financial Commissioner.
4. The Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petitions holding
that though the Settlement Officer had allowed the appeals on the premise
that the appellants were in possession of the Plot No.144/32 but had not
indicated the basis for the said conclusion; it was further observed that there
was no analysis in the orders of the Settlement Officer as to why the original
allotment of the said plot in favour of the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas needed
to be reversed and whether the same was in contravention of the provisions
of the Scheme. The Financial Commissioner also observed that the
Settlement Officer had not discussed the relative merits and demerits of the
demand of the appellants and the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas with respect to
the said plot. It was also observed that there did not appear to be any record
of possession or claim of the appellants to the plot. Holding the order of the
Settlement Officer to be non-speaking, the revisions were allowed.
5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions preferred by
the appellants primarily on the ground that the appellants had not shown any
document of their possession of the plot and for the reason of their having
not agreed to the spot inspection as suggested and to which the respondent
no.3 Sh. Rohtas was agreeable. It was thus inferred that the appellants were
not in possession, as claimed by them.
6. We are constrained to observe a peculiar feature of the orders
aforesaid of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer and the Financial
Commissioner. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections
preferred by the appellants merely observing that the Plot No.144/32 stood
allotted to the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas. The Settlement Officer in appeal
though disapproving of such order of the Consolidation Officer himself did
not record any reasons for holding the appellants to be in possession of or
entitled to allotment of the plot or for allotment earlier made in favour of the
respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas to be bad or the need for reversal thereof. The
Financial Commissioner again, though disapproving of such order of the
Settlement Officer of not recording any reason or basis for the conclusion
reached, rather than remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer,
allowed the revisions resulting in restoration of the order of Consolidation
Officer of dismissal of the objections preferred by the appellants. It would
thus be seen that at no stage has any decision on merits of the said objections
and/or of the rival claims of the appellants on the one hand and the
respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas on the other hand has been rendered.
7. Insofar as the learned Single Judge has been influenced by the refusal
of the appellants to the offer of spot inspection, we enquired from the
counsels, the nature of the land. We are told that it is open land which has
not been built upon. We also find that from the claims of the appellants that
the said land in fact was a "Gher" for grazing of cattle. We are constrained
to observe that possession of such open land is difficult to determine and in
any case unlikely to be determined in spot inspection as was sought to be
done before the learned Single Judge. We therefore, do not attach much
value to the refusal of appellants to spot inspection and are unable to draw
any adverse inference against the appellants for refusing the same.
8. The rival rights of the parties to the land, as aforesaid have not been
adjudicated till now. The senior counsel for the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas
of course has sought to demonstrate before us the falsity of the claim of the
appellants by contending that the appellants were earlier making a claim for
possession of a different Khasra number and during the pendency of the
proceedings inexplicably changed their stand to that of the earlier Khasra
number on which Plot No.144/32 is situated.
9. It is not however for us to, in these appeals, for the first time
adjudicate all the said pleas. Ideally, all the said pleas ought to have been
considered and adjudicated by the authorities below and which they have
failed to do. The senior counsel for the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas also has
been unable to show to us any adjudication of the rival claims by any of the
authorities below. The Settlement Officer and the Financial Commissioner
in their respective orders have merely deprecated the order of the
Consolidation Officer and of the Settlement Officer respectively but did not
return any findings on the merits of the claims of either parties.
10. The matter thus requires to be remanded for adjudication in
accordance with law. Both parties agree that rather than remanding the
matters to the Financial Commissioner, the same be remanded to the
Settlement Officer. The senior counsel for the respondent no.3 Sh. Rohtas
states that considerable time having elapsed, direction for decision in a time
bound manner be issued. The same is agreeable to the counsel for the
appellants also.
11. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the order dated 31 st
October, 2011 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions preferred by
the appellants and the orders dated 14th December, 2006 of the Financial
Commissioner in the revision petitions (supra) preferred by the respondent
no.3 Sh. Rohtas are modified and the matter remanded to the Settlement
Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law. The Settlement Officer is
further directed to decide the appeals preferred by the appellants on or
before 31st May, 2012. The parties are directed to appear before the
Settlement Officer on 9th January, 2012.
The appeals are disposed of.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 22, 2011
bs
