Delhi High Court
Gram Vikas Samiti(Regd) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 26 September, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4991/2011 & CM.APPL.10107/2011
GRAM VIKAS SAMITI(REGD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.K. Sood with Mr. Manik Sood &
Mr. Archit Vasudeva, Advocates
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. N.S. Dalal with Mr. Amit Rana &
Mr. Devesh Pratap Singh, Advocates for
Respondents No.3, 4 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
ORDER
% 26.09.2013
1. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the consolidation
in village Khera Khurd started in the year 1970 and came to an end in the
year 1973. Some objections were raised to the consolidation by Shri Ram
Swaroop (since deceased) before the Consolidation Officer through his
legal heirs. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation
Officer(Tehsildar) by an order dated 16.10.2008. By an order dated
04.12.2008 read with the order dated 23.12.2008, agricultural land
bearing Khasra No.51//17 min (2-04) Eastern side, 88//24(1-16) was
withdrawn from the Khata of the Gaon Sabha and returned to the
Respondents. The Petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the
Financial Commissioner which came to be dismissed by him by an order
dated 28.09.2010.
2. Mr. B.K. Sood, the learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that in the
impugned order, the learned Financial Commissioner heavily relied on a
report dated 08.03.2010 obtained from the SDM. He has drawn my
attention to the order dated 19.01.2010 to urge that, in fact, the arguments
of the parties were heard on that day and the Revision Petition was
reserved for orders. It is only behind the back of the Petitioner that the
report was called from the SDM of the area on the basis of which the
instant order was passed.
3. The original file of Case No.33/2009-CA Gram Vikas Samit. v.
Consolidation Officer and Others has been summoned. This Court has
perused the order dated 19.01.2010. It is quite apparent that the portion
"A report be called from the SDM of the area regarding utilisation of the
said land for play ground, nature & topography of the land, etc. as
mentioned during the proceedings" was added in the order later on.
4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, the learned counsel for the Respondents No.3, 4 and 6
submits that these additions were made by the learned Financial
Commissioner in the court itself and the Petitioner was very much aware
of the same.
5. A perusal of the original file shows that the addition has been made in
different ink and in a different hand writing. Thus, the same cannot be at
the time of passing the order. In all probability, the addition as extracted
above was made in the order dated 19.01.2010 subsequently. Thus, the
contentions raised by the Petitioner that the report dated 08.03.2010 of
the SDM was obtained behind his back and was relied upon to pass this
order cannot be brushed aside.
6. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same is,
consequently, set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Financial
Commissioner with the direction to supply a copy of the report of the
SDM to the Petitioner and to hear the parties afresh. It is made clear that
the entire matter shall be open before the Financial Commissioner and the
parties shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions available to them,
including the maintainability of the Revision Petition. It is directed that
the Financial Commissioner shall decide the matter expeditiously and, as
far as possible, within three months.
7. In terms of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
8. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
pst
