Chand Ram & Ors. vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2570 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 12th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 2519/2011

         CHAND RAM & ORS.                                   ..... Petitioners
                     Through:             Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. with Mr.
                                          Udai Bhan & Mr. Bhagirath Verma,
                                          Advocates

                                     Versus

         LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Najmi Waziri, Adv. with Ms.
                              Zeenat Masoodi & Ms. Neha
                              Kapoor, Advocates.
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 70 petitioners claim to be the Bhumidhars of 70% of the land in

village Mundela Khurd, Najafgarh, New Delhi. It is their case that a

scheme for consolidation was mooted for the said village in the year 1972

but which inspite of passage of nearly 40 years has not been concluded as

yet. They further claim that they are still in possession of their pre-

consolidation holdings.

2. The petitioners themselves have in the writ petition disclosed an

earlier round of litigation relating to the consolidation proceedings in the

village. One Mr. Sarup Singh and others had filed W.P.(C) No.4144/1998.

From the order dated 23rd July, 2007 in the said writ petition, it transpires

that it was found by the Single Judge that the Consolidation Proceedings

stood concluded.

3. Intra court appeal being LPA No.1185/2007 was preferred and in the

order dated 27th January, 2009 disposing of the said appeal also, the

Financial Commissioner is quoted as having found on going through the

records in the year 1999 that 80% of the work of consolidation had been

concluded and the remaining 20% work was also nearing conclusion.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the findings in the

aforesaid round of litigation inter alia to the effect that the consolidation

proceedings begun in the year 1972 stood concluded is collusive and an

incorrect finding. The petitioners in this regard rely on the office notings

obtained through the medium of RTI and the averments in a contempt

petition arising out of the said earlier proceedings.

5. The averments made in the petition require a lot of investigation of

facts including into the records as to consolidation. It has been enquired

from the counsel for the petitioners as to whether the remedy of a revision

petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and

Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 would not be a proper remedy for

making the grievances as made in the present writ petition. It is felt that

the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the

Act is better equipped to go into and answer the questions as raised in this

writ petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that since there is no

order to be challenged before the Financial Commissioner, the remedy

under Section 42 of the Act is not available. However, the scope and

ambit of Section 42 of the Act is much wider. Thereunder the Financial

Commissioner has been given supervisory power, to be exercised at any

time over the consolidation proceedings and to call for and examine the

record of the consolidation proceedings whether pending or disposed of.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that the

Financial Commissioner may oust the petitioners for the reason of the

findings in the earlier writ petition as to the consolidation proceedings

having concluded.

8. The petitioners rely upon certain notings in the files of the

respondents to the effect that the consolidation has not been concluded. I

am sure that if the averments as made in the present petition are made

before the Financial Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner would

deal with the same and give reasons qua the material relied upon by the

petitioners to contend that the consolidation proceedings were not

concluded.

9. The counsel for the petitioners has also contended that with the

passage of time, the scheme of consolidation earlier mooted is no longer

viable. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to what

is the right, if any, of the petitioners to seek a fresh scheme. The counsel

for the petitioners in this regard relies upon Section 14 of the Act which

provides for a scheme being initiated either by the government itself or on

the application of any other person. However, the reason for the

petitioners in the present case to demand a fresh consolidation is of the

consolidation scheme of 1972 having remained unimplemented. If the

Financial Commissioner on examination of the records of consolidation

finds that the consolidation in fact stood concluded and there is no merit in

the averments of the petitioners, then the same would entail finality under

Section 24 of the Act. Moreover, if that be so, it will be seen that the

scheme was under implementation as late as in the year 2007 and the

argument raised of the passage of 40 years would not be available to the

petitioners.

10. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners whether the

petitioners had preferred any objection to the scheme and to the re-partition

admittedly done though stated to be only on paper. The counsel states that

objections were preferred but which remained undecided. If that be so,

then the petitioners have all the more reasons to invoke the remedy of

Section 42 rather than approaching this Court directly by way of this writ

petition.

11. The petition is therefore dismissed as pre-mature / not maintainable

with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under

the Act for redressal of their grievances as made in this petition.

CM No.5350/2011 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 12, 2011 'gsr'