Mohit Tiwari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 1592 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                                        Reserved on : February 03, 2012
                                        Pronounced on : March 06, 2012


+                       W.P.(C) 5982/2011
                           &
                         CM No.16717/2011
                           &
                        CM No.1580/2012

      MOHIT TIWARI                           ..... Petitioner
          Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh
                   M. Goel, Advocate.

                               versus

      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                     ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for

Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate for the applicants in CM No.1580/2012.

CORAM:

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

      %                    ORDER
                          06.03.2012

1. Petitioner claims to be bona fide purchaser of 3 bighas and 17 biswas of agricultural land in khasra No. 371 min. in the revenue estate of Village- Nangloi Syed, Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed of 3 rd May, 2010 (Annexure P-1), which was registered on 21st June, 2010.

2. The concerned SDM i.e. respondent No.2 upon receiving the complaint regarding evasion of stamp duty in respect of the aforesaid Sale Deed, had called upon the petitioner vide Notice of 19th January, 2007 (Annexure P-7) to produce the relevant documents in respect of W.P.(C) No.5982/2011 Page 1 this transaction. A disciplinary action was initiated on 1st June, 2011 by the SDM Head Quarters against the erring Revenue Officials in respect of the afore-noted transaction and the second respondent was called upon by the SDM Head Quarters vide Communication of 30 th June, 2011 to correct the revenue record in respect of the subject matter in hand and to restore its status as Sarkar Daulatmadar. In pursuance thereto, the second respondent i.e. the concerned SDM vide impugned order of 12th July, 2011, had ordered for keeping the revenue entries in respect of the subject land in abeyance till further orders and for correction of the revenue entries i.e. khasra girdawaries of the years 2003 to 2007 and khatoni for the year 2007-08, the concerned parties were put to notice.

3. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, correction of the aforesaid revenue record by the SDM concerned is prohibited by law, as it is the concerned Deputy Commissioner who can do so.

4. The relevant provision regarding correction of the revenue record is Section 26 of The Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, which reads as under:-

'26. Correction of mistake or error in Annual Register- The Deputy Commissioner may, or his own motion and, shall, on the application of any person correct any mistake or error in the Annual Register.'

5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned counsel for applicant- Kishan Pal could not point out any provision which could enable the SDM to correct the revenue record. It is the concerned Deputy Commissioner who can do so either suo moto or on the application filed by the affected party.

W.P.(C) No.5982/2011 Page 2

6. Without going touching upon the merits of this case and commenting upon the status of the applicant- Kishan Pal, I find that initiation of the proceedings by the concerned SDM to correct the revenue record is contrary to Section 26 of The Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. On this short ground alone, impugned order (Annexure P-

8) deserves to be set aside.

7. So far as the impleadment of applicant- Kishan Pal, in view of the averments made against him in Paragraphs No. 8,9, 12 & 13 of the writ petition is concerned, it is unwarranted as no relief has been claimed against him. Moreover, the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs touch upon the merits of this case, which have not been gone into herein. Accordingly, CM No. 1580/2012 is dismissed.

8. Since the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority, therefore, it is set aside, while refraining to comment upon the merits of this case, which is required to be gone into, in case the concerned Deputy Commissioner proceeds to act upon the communication of 30th June, 2011 from the SDM Head Quarters regarding the rectification of the revenue record in question.

9. With these observations, this petition is disposed of with, no order as to costs. Pending application is dismissed as infructuous.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
      March 06, 2012
      rs




W.P.(C) No.5982/2011                                                            Page 3