Jai Narain & Ors vs Nagender & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2534 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 25th March, 2015

+      LPA 174/2015, CMs No.5562/2015 (for stay) & 5563/2015 (for
       condonation of 13 days delay in re-filing)

       JAI NARAIN & ORS                                      ..... Appellants
                     Through:         Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.

                               Versus

    NAGENDER & ORS                                        ..... Respondents
                  Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 6 th January, 2015

of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.9128/2008 preferred

by the appellants. The appeal is accompanied with an application being CM

No.5563/2015 for condonation of 13 days delay in re-filing of the appeal.

For disposal of this application, issuance of notice of the appeal to the

respondents is not deemed necessary. The delay in re-filing the appeal is

condoned and the application is disposed of.

2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and the memorandum of

appeal and having prima facie not found any ground to entertain this appeal,

we have also heard the counsel for the appellants at length on the merits of

the appeal.

3. The lis has a long history. Consolidation proceedings under the

provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of

Fragmentation) Act, 1948 were held in Village Khera Khurd in the year

1973-75. Under the Scheme of consolidation, bhumidars and non-

bhumidars were eligible for allotment of residential plot of the maximum

size of 2 bighas in the extended phirni / abadi and after adjusting the value

thereof, the balance land was to be allotted in agricultural land.

4. Sh. Tek Ram, being the predecessor of the respondents 1 to 6, in the

said consolidation proceedings was allotted residential plot No.304

admeasuring 1 bigha 10 biswas.

5. Sh. Ram Murti, being the predecessor of the seven appellants filed

objection before the Consolidation Officer to the aforesaid allotment

claiming that plot No.304 was part of his pre-consolidation holding. The

said objection was on 8th December, 1975 dismissed by the Consolidation

Officer and the appeal thereagainst preferred by Sh. Ram Murti to the

Settlement Officer was also dismissed vide order dated 16 th December, 1976.

Sh. Ram Murti preferred a second appeal to the Additional Collector, which

was allowed vide order dated 20th November, 1978 solely on the ground that

plot No.304 was part of pre-consolidation holding of Sh. Ram Murti and also

had a Dharamshala, well and trees thereon. Accordingly, plot No.304 was

allotted to Sh. Ram Murti and it was further ordered that if there was any

deficiency in the entitlement of Sh. Ram Murti, the same will be made good

by allotting area out of plot No.305.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, Sh. Tek Ram preferred CWP No.284/1979 in

this Court. Both Sh. Tek Ram and Sh. Ram Murti died during the pendency

of the writ petition and were substituted by the respondents 1 to 6 and the

appellants respectively. However, for the sake of convenience, reference

hereinafter is by the name of Sh. Tek Ram and Sh. Ram Murti only. The writ

petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment

dated 3rd January, 2003.

7. Sh. Tek Ram preferred an appeal, being LPA No.47/2003 but which

was on 15th January, 2003 dismissed in limine by a non-speaking order.

8. Sh. Tek Ram then took the matter to the Supreme Court by filing

SLP(C) No.11366/2003 which was granted and converted into Civil Appeal

No.1493/2004. It was inter alia the contention of Sh. Tek Ram before the

Supreme Court that "having regard to the subsequent developments and the

acquisition of the very lands in question," Sh. Ram Murti "will have no

further subsisting rights any longer to assert any claim in the matter". The

Supreme Court vide order dated 8th March, 2004 allowed the appeal of Sh.

Tek Ram and remitted the matter to the Division Bench of this Court with a

direction to restore LPA No.47/2003 to its original position and dispose of

the matter afresh on merits. Liberty was also given to Sh. Tek Ram to bring

to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court the subsequent

developments which were urged before the Supreme Court and the Division

Bench of this Court was directed to consider such subsequent developments

as well.

9. The Division Bench of this Court, on LPA No.47/2003 being so

remitted, vide judgment dated 28th February, 2005, recorded:

(i) that both Sh. Ram Murti and Sh. Tek Ram were possessed of

land in the village;

(ii) that in the consolidation proceedings, Sh. Ram Murti was

allotted plot No.306 and Sh. Tek Ram was allotted plot No.304;

(iii) that the grievance of Sh. Ram Murti was that his entitlement

was not complete with the allotment of plot No.306 and he approached

the Consolidation Officer; though the Consolidation Officer offered

another plot bearing No.341 to Sh. Ram Murti but he refused to

accept; the Consolidation Officer accordingly vide order dated 8th

December, 1975 supra rejected the application / objection of Sh. Ram

Murti;

(iv) that Sh. Ram Murti in appeal before the Settlement Officer

claimed that he should be allotted either plot No.304 or 305, being his

pre-consolidation land; the Settlement Officer however found that plot

No.306 satisfied the requirement of Sh. Ram Murti and the offer of

plot No.341 made to Sh. Ram Murti had not been accepted and

accordingly on 16th December, 1976 dismissed the appeal;

(v) that the Additional Collector however on 20th November, 1978

allowed the second appeal of Sh. Ram Murti without considering the

reasons given by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer;

(vi) that it was the contention of Sh. Tek Ram in LPA

No.47/2003--(a) that the demand of Sh. Ram Murti in addition to plot

No.306 already allotted to him should have been satisfied from plot

No.305 and not from plot No.304; (b) that Sh. Ram Murti in fact was

only a co-sharer of plot No.306; (c) that the Consolidation Officer and

the Settlement Officer were the Revenue Authorities at site, who had

considered the value of land including the factor of proximity to come

to the conclusion that the demand of Sh. Ram Murti was satisfied and

their said conclusions should not have been so lightly interfered with

by the Additional Collector;

and held

(vii) that the order dated 16th December, 1976 of the Settlement

Officer was a well reasoned order and found that the demand of Sh.

Ram Murti stood satisfied with the allotment of plot No.306; if this

finding had to be set aside by the Additional Collector, it could be

only for cogent reasons to be recorded and which had not been done;

(viii) that plot Nos.304, 305 and 306 were in one line, contiguous to

each other; thus, the plot contiguous to plot No.306 which was

allotted to Sh. Ram Murti was plot No.305 and the Additional

Collector in his order dated 20th November, 1978 had not dealt with

this issue;

(ix) that the mere fact that in the pre-consolidation area, Sh. Ram

Murti had a Dharamshala, well and trees, did not give him any right

for higher allotment of land;

(x) that the Additional Collector could not have set aside the order

of the Settlement Officer without returning a finding that plot No.306

allotted to Sh. Ram Murti did not satisfy in value his right;

(xi) that it was also the contention of Sh. Tek Ram that since then

the land to be surrendered by Sh. Ram Murti had in fact been

acquired--this plea was also required to be considered by the Revenue

Authorities.

Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Additional

Collector to pass an order in accordance with law, after recording

proper reasons, as to why the orders of the Consolidation Officer and

Settlement Officer needed to be set aside / modified.

10. The Additional Collector, on remand aforesaid, in order dated 12 th

December, 2008, found / observed / held:

(A) that in the consolidation proceedings, plot No.304 was allotted

to Sh. Tek Ram, plot No.305 was allotted to Sh. Sultan Singh

(predecessor of respondents No.7&8 herein) and plot No.306 was

allotted to Sh. Ram Murti;

(B) that the grievance of Sh. Ram Murti was that his entitlement

was not complete with the allotment of plot No.306;

(C) that Sh. Ram Murti was offered another plot bearing No.341 in

the neighbourhood but he refused to accept the same, maintaining that

he should have been allotted either plot No.304 or 305 which was his

pre-consolidation land;

(D) that the Settlement Officer held that the demand of Sh. Ram

Murti stood satisfied on allotment of plot No.306 and offer of plot

No.341, which was refused;

(E) that the Tehsildar, Narela, Delhi in his fresh report dated 21 st

April, 2008 had stated that there is no deficiency in the account of Sh.

Ram Murti;

(F) that the Halqa Patwari and Office Kanungo also, on 10th May,

2006 had reported that though Sh. Ram Murti claimed his pre-

consolidation holding to be admeasuring 4 bighas 8 biswas, however

the area of the said holding was recorded as 3 bighas 10 biswas in

Khatoni Chakbandi;

(G) that on the basis of the pre-consolidation holding admeasuring 3

bighas 10 biswas of Sh. Ram Murti, there was no deficiency in the

Khata of Sh. Ram Murti;

(H) that as per the report dated 23rd October, 2008 submitted by the

Tehsildar, Saraswati Vihar, the total land which was in the account of

Sh. Ram Murti before consolidation operations was of the standard

value of 12 bighas 15 biswas and that land allotted to Sh. Ram Murti

during the consolidation proceedings was of standard value of 12

bighas 14 biswas;

(I) that as per the consolidation scheme, deficiency of 0-2 biswa in

allotment could be overlooked;

(J) therefore, as per the scheme, there was no deficiency in the

account of Sh. Ram Murti during consolidation operations;

(K) that the Halqa Patwari had also reported that the entire land

admeasuring 30 bighas 13 biswas allotted to Sh. Ram Murti during

consolidation stood acquired;

(L) thus, no land had been left in the name of Sh. Ram Murti which

could be adjusted / taken back, if plot No.304 was to be then allotted

to Sh. Ram Murti;

(M) that in any case, after acquisition of land, the Revenue Courts

were left with no jurisdiction in the matter;

(N) that the Collector (Additional Collector) independently also was

satisfied that as per consolidation scheme, the demand of Sh. Ram

Murti had been met and there was no deficiency of land in his account

during the consolidation proceedings.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Sh. Ram Murti against the

orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer was

dismissed.

11. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 12th December, 2008 of the

Collector (Additional Collector), the writ petition from which this appeal

arises was filed.

12. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment has concurred

with the order of the Collector (Additional Collector).

13. The counsel for the appellants before us has contended, (I) that the

Collector has decided the matter de hors the directions and parameters

contained in the judgment dated 28th February, 2005 supra of the Division

Bench; and, (II) that even if the finding of the Collector in the order dated

12th December, 2008 of there being no deficiency in the account of Sh. Ram

Murti were to be accepted as correct, the Collector did not consider that Sh.

Tek Ram also was not entitled to plot No.304.

14. We are unable to accept either of the aforesaid arguments. The

Collector (Additional Collector), in deciding the appeal, was required to

adjudicate the claim of Sh. Ram Murti of his being entitled to plot No.304

for the purpose of making up the deficiency in his account post consolidation

of land and because plot No.304 was part of his pre-consolidation holding.

The Collector, in the order dated 12th December, 2008 has found that there

was no deficiency of land in the account of Sh. Ram Murti, to make up

which he claimed plot No.304. The Collector undoubtedly has not returned

any finding on the claim of Sh. Ram Murti to plot No.304 on the basis of the

same being part of his pre-consolidation holding but has reasoned that, even

if for this reason, plot No.304 is to be today given to Sh. Ram Murti, Sh.

Ram Murti had been left with no land from which allotment of plot No.304

to him could be balanced. As far as the contention, of Sh. Tek Ram being

not entitled to plot No.304, the same was never in issue, as would be obvious

from the record aforesaid.

15. There is thus no merit in the appeal.

16. We may also record that the challenge by Sh. Ram Murti in this appeal

is a challenge to the factual findings returned by the Collector in his order

dated 12th December, 2008 and in which challenge, the learned Single Judge

has not found any merit. Ordinarily, this Court and more so, while

exercising powers under the Letters Patent Appeal, is not to interfere with

the factual findings. No error staring on the face of the record in the said

factual deductions and conclusions drawn / made by the Collector is pointed

out to us also.

We therefore do not find any reason to entertain this appeal and dismiss the same.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE MARCH 25, 2015/bs..