Delhi High Court
Kesarwati & Ors vs Financial Commissioner, Delhi & ... on 7 May, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : April 17, 2012
Pronounced on: May 07, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.11797-99/2006
KESARWATI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
W.P.(C) No.11807/2006
SH. MAHENDER SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, Delhi & ORS. .....Respondents.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
07.05.2012
1. Since the impugned orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) in
the above captioned two petitions are the same, therefore it was stated
by learned counsel for the petitioners of the afore-noted two petitions
that the submissions advanced would be identical and thus, both these
petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order. Petitioner- Mahender Singh while claiming to be the
Bhumidhar of the subject land had executed General Power of
Attorney of 23rd July, 1998 on behalf of the kumharan community in
W.P. (C) No.11797-99/2006 & W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 Page 1
favour of petitioners - Smt. Kesarwati, etc. Petitioner - Mahender
Singh is respondent No.12 in the writ petition filed by petitioner - Smt.
Kesarwati and he supports the case of the petitioner - Smt. Kesarwati
& Ors.
2. The order impugned herein is of 8th June, 2006 of the Financial
Commissioner, Delhi, who vide aforesaid order has dismissed
petitioners' appeal under Section 64 and 65 of the Delhi Land
Revenue Act, 1954, against Collector's order of 20th March, 2006
declaring mutation of agricultural land measuring 7 Bighas and 3
Biswas in Khasra No. 82/23 (2-1) and 82/24 (5-2), situated in the
revenue estate of Village Sultanpur Dabas (hereinafter referred to as
subject land) in favour of petitioners as illegal and void.
3. Aforesaid impugned orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) are
assailed by learned counsel for the petitioners urging that mutation
order cannot be set aside merely because Gaon Sabha was not put to
notice, as Gaon Sabha was aware that proceedings under Section 81 of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, against the petitioners were
dropped vide order of 23rd March, 2000 and the appeal against the said
order is pending. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that
there was no justification to condone the delay of about seven years in
challenging mutation order of 17th December, 1998 and in any case,
reversion of the subject land to Gaon Sabha in proceedings under the
Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 is impermissible in law. To fortify this
submission, reliance is placed by petitioners' counsel upon decision in
Master Mayank Vashishth vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors, 114
(2004) DLT 162.
4. At the hearing of this petition, there was no representation on
behalf of the respondents. However, with the assistance of learned
W.P. (C) No.11797-99/2006 & W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 Page 2
counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders (Annexure-N and
Annexure-P) as well as the material on record was perused. In the
counter Affidavit filed by respondent - Gaon Sabha of this Village,
the stand taken is that neither any individual's name of community of
kumharan nor their share is mentioned in the revenue record of the
subject land and so, one member of kumharan committee cannot sell
the subject land as claimed in the writ petition. It is categorically
denied by respondent - Gaon Sabha that community of kumharans
was declared Bhumidhar of the subject land.
5. Whether the kumharan community has consisted of just five
members, i.e., petitioner - Mahender Singh and four others, or that
bhumidari rights conferred upon the kumharan community could be
transferred to third parties, cannot be subject matter of the
proceedings Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and therefore, submissions
advanced on this aspect are not being adverted to and are left open to
be considered in appropriate proceedings. In view of the dictum in
Master Mayank (supra), concededly the question of status of the
petitioners in the subject land is not required to be gone into, in
proceedings under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and the same
can be examined as and when provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954 are invoked.
6. In view of the aforesaid, finding returned in the impugned
orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) of subject land being reserved
for kumharan community by the Gaon Sabha, with a view to earn
their livelihood by taking out earth from the subject land with the
restriction not to sell or transfer it in any manner whatsoever by any
individual member of the community, in proceedings under the Delhi
Land Revenue Act, 1954 is unwarranted, rendering the impugned
W.P. (C) No.11797-99/2006 & W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 Page 3
orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) unsustainable in law.
7. So far as the setting aside of the mutation order of 17 th
December, 1998 on account of Gaon Sabha of this Village being not
put to notice is concerned, this concurrent finding in the impugned
orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) cannot be upset merely because
proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
against the petitioners were dropped way back in the year 2000. More
so, when appeal against order of 23rd March, 2000 dropping
proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
against the petitioners is stated to be pending.
8. Impugned orders (Annexure-N and Annexure-P) setting aside
the mutation of 17th December, 1998, are upheld but, the direction
contained therein to revert back the subject land to Gaon Sabha is
quashed being without jurisdiction.
9. Both these petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated
above, with no orders as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
May 07, 2012.
pkb/rs
W.P. (C) No.11797-99/2006 & W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 Page 4
