Delhi High Court
Joginder Singh & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 19 January, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th January, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 333/2011
JOGINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pravesh Tyagi & Mr. Hiteshi
Arora, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate
for R-1 to R-6.
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 22 petitioners claim to be the residents of village Kanjhawala,
consolidation proceedings wherein were begun in the year 1996. As per the
petitioners, in the Scheme for Consolidation a 25 feet wide patch of land on
either side of the 100 feet wide road carved out was reserved for forest /
green belt. According to the petitioners, the Financial Commissioner vide
order dated 15th April, 2010 in Revision Petition No.18/2007 CA filed by
Sh. Rohtash Singh & Ors., de-reserved the said land reserved for the green
belt and directed that the alleged deficiencies in land be made out from the
said land. The said order dated 15th April, 2010 of the Financial
Commissioner was challenged by one Smt. Birmati by filing W.P.(C)
No.4239/2010 in this Court. The said W.P.(C) No.4239/2010 was disposed
of vide order dated 5th July, 2010; the order dated 15th April, 2010 of the
Financial Commissioner was set aside and the matter remanded to the
Financial Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition after hearing
Smt. Birmati and all other interested parties to whom notice was directed to
be given. The parties were directed to appear before the Financial
Commissioner on 15th July, 2010.
2. The petitioners have preferred this petition with the grievance that
notwithstanding the order dated 5th July, 2010 of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.4239/2010 setting aside the earlier order dated 15 th April, 2010 of the
Financial Commissioner, the Consolidation Officer continues to make
allotment of land out of the land reserved for green belt and has also not
taken any action for cancellation of the allotments already made.
3. As per the petitioners, they are "interested parties" within the meaning
of the order dated 5th July, 2010 (supra) in the revision petition pending
before the Financial Commissioner. Since the Financial Commissioner is
stated to be still seized of the matter and has not disposed of the revision
petition till now, the remedy if any of the petitioners is before the Financial
Commissioner in the revision petition aforesaid and not by way of this writ
petition. The relief claimed in this writ petition is in the nature of interim
relief pending the decision by the Financial Commissioner on, whether the
land earlier reserved for green belt can be de-reserved or not. Such interim
relief has to be claimed before the Financial Commissioner only and not by
way of this independent petition. It may also be mentioned that the
petitioners have not impleaded, as parties to this petition, the persons in
whose favour allotments out of the green belt land are stated to have been
made.
4. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the petitioners, she states
that the petitioners have in fact moved an application for the same relief
before the Financial Commissioner. However, neither there is any plea to
the said effect in the petition nor the copy of the said application is
available.
5. Be that as it may, this writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable
with liberty to the petitioners to apply to the Financial Commissioner or the
Consolidation Officer as they may be advised with respect to the grievance
made in this petition.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 19, 2011
„gsr‟
