Delhi High Court
Ashish And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi And Ors on 28 January, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 888/2013 and CM APPL. 1687/2013
Decided on 28.01.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
ASHISH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Advocate for R-1
and R-2.
Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for R-3/Samiti.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying inter alia
for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the
respondent No.2/Additional Collector/Deputy Commissioner/District
Magistrate, North District, Delhi, in an appeal preferred by the respondent
No.3/Samiti.
2. Vide order dated 31.01.2013, the respondent No.2 had stated that
he was making compliances of an order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the
High Court in W.P.(C) 7360/2012, a petition filed by the respondent
No.3/Samiti herein, whereunder directions were issued to the respondent
No.2 to consider the representation of the respondent No.3/Samiti for
seeking possession of the plot allotted to it during the consolidation
proceedings that were held in the year 1954. By the impugned order, the
order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer on
applications filed by the petitioners and the respondent No.3/Samiti, was
quashed and set aside by the respondent No.2 and directions were issued
to the Tehsildar (Alipur) to hand over the physical possession of a parcel
of land measuring 6 Bighas situated in village Khera Kalan to the original
allottees and their legal heirs with immediate effect. Further, the entries
made in the records of rights as per the order dated 05.10.2012 passed
by the Consolidation Officer, were directed to be cancelled.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2
was not competent to pass the impugned order and that the said order
was passed behind their back and without affording them a hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent No.2 does
not enjoy judicial powers under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 for hearing the appeal
against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the remedy
against the said order of the Consolidation Officer lies by way of a revision
petition before the Financial Commissioner. He further states that it was
not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 that the members of the
respondent No.3/Samiti had already filed a consolidated appeal against
the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, before
the Settlement Officer, which was pending adjudication. Lastly, learned
counsel states that while passing the impugned order, the respondent
No.2 had flouted the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were
not called for seeking their response to the order dated 05.10.2012
passed by the Consolidation Officer, more so when the said order had
been passed in their favour.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Samiti states that the
subject land was allotted to the members of the Samiti way back in the
year 1954 as members of the weaker section, but possession of the said
land was never handed over to them. He states that after the order dated
05.10.2012 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, though the members
of the respondent No.3/Samiti had filed a consolidated appeal against the
said order before the Settlement Officer, during the pendency of the said
appeal, the appellants therein were apprehensive that the status of the
subject land was likely to be changed by the petitioners and therefore,
they had approached the respondent No.2 and simultaneously approached
the High Court for appropriate relief. It is however not disputed that the
petitioners were never granted a hearing by the respondent No.2 before
the impugned order came to be passed. It is also an admitted position
that under the Statute, the remedy against an order passed by the
Consolidation Officer lies by way of a revision petition before the Financial
Commissioner and not by approaching the Settlement Officer.
5. To resolve the aforesaid issue, it is deemed appropriate to dispose
of the present petition with the consent of the parties. Directions are
issued that the consolidated appeals stated to have been filed by forty
five members of the respondent No.3/Samiti before the Settlement Officer
and disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2013 in the light of the impugned
order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, shall be revived.
As it is the Financial Commissioner, who is the competent authority
vested with the power to entertain a revision petition against an order
passed by the Consolidation Officer, and not the Settlement Officer, once
the appeal is treated as a revision petition, it shall be placed before the
Financial Commissioner for further proceedings. The petitioners as also
the forty five members of the respondent No.3/Samiti, who had filed the
consolidated appeal, shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on
03.03.2014, so that pleadings can be completed. Thereafter a date shall
be fixed by the Financial Commissioner for both sides to address
arguments. Both the parties shall be entitled to raise before the learned
Financial Commissioner, all the pleas as may be available to them, both
on facts and in law, within the scope of a revision petition.
6. In view of the aforesaid order, the impugned order dated 31.1.2013
passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Till appropriate
orders are passed by the Financial Commissioner on the application for
interim relief as may be filed by the members of the respondent
No.3/Samiti/revisionists, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard
to the title and possession of the subject land.
7. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent
No.3/Samiti that the members of the Samiti have not been granted
possession of the subject land despite the fact that allotments in their
favour had matured as long back as in the year 1955, the learned
Financial Commissioner is requested to expedite the hearing of the
revision petition and make an endeavour to dispose of the same,
preferably within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of
arguments by both sides. Neither side shall be accommodated for
unnecessary adjournments.
8. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
DASTI to the counsel for the respondent No.2.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 28, 2014 JUDGE
rkb/mk
