Satish Kumar Goel & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       LPA 821/2012 and CM No.21038/2012(stay)
        SATISH KUMAR GOEL & ORS                          ..... Appellants
                     Through:Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate
                     versus
        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS          ..... Respondents
                     Through:Counsel for respondents No.1 & 6
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                       ORDER

% 18.02.2013

1. During the pendency of a revision petition before the Financial

Commissioner, the appellants filed a copy of the objections purporting to be

filed by them before the Consolidation Officer. Thereupon an application

was filed by the respondent Smt.Priya Ralhan, alleging therein that the said

objections were forged documents since no such objections were actually

filed before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer stated

before the Financial Commissioner, in writing, that no such objections had

been filed. As a result, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated

28.2.2011, directed that a complaint, in writing be made to the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for taking cognizance and trying the LPA 821/2012 page 1 of 3 appellants for the offences mentioned in the order or any other offence

which they may be found to have committed. The order passed by the

Financial Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner by way of WP(C)

No.6794/2011. The learned Single Judge having found no jurisdictional

error or illegality in the order of Financial Commissioner dismissed the writ

petition. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us by way of this

appeal.

2. Since the appellant relied upon the report of the patwari dated 7th July,

2007 in support of their contention that such objections were actually filed

by them, we directed the learned counsel for the respondents to seek

instructions in respect of the aforesaid report which is Annexure `P3' (page

88-89) of the Appeal paper book, to find out whether the appellant had

earlier filed any objection or not. Since no report in compliance of the said

order was filed, we directed concerned patwari to remain present today.

The concerned patwari is, accordingly, present before us. When confronted

with the report dated 7th July, 2007 wherein he stated that "Sh.Satish Goel

etc. have objected on the ground that it was our old Kh.No. and same be

allotted to us." He states that only an application was filed by the appellants LPA 821/2012 page 2 of 3 and he was referring to that application when he submitted report with the

above quoted statement. We asked the learned counsel for the respondents

to produce before us the application which finds reference as objections in

the report of patwari dated 7th July, 2007. The said application however has

not been produced. In these circumstances, considering the aforesaid report

dated 7th July, 2007, it appears to us that the petitioners had submitted

objections, may be in the form of an application which the patwari had

referred in his report dated 7th July, 2007. In the absence of production of

the application submitted by the appellants, we cannot say that the copy of

the purported objections filed before the Financial Commissioner was a

forged or morphed document. Consequently, we cannot sustain the

impugned order dated 3rd July, 2012 and the order passed by the Financial

Commissioner on 28th February, 2011 and the same are hereby set aside.

The appeal and all pending applications stand disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                  V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
ks
LPA 821/2012                                                   page 3 of 3