Delhi High Court
Deputy Commissioner (West) & Anr vs Kuldeep Singh & Anr. on 22 November, 2017
$~25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.11.2017
+ LPA 622/2016
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WEST) & ANR...... Appellants
versus
KULDEEP SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr J.M.Kalia
For the Respondents : Mr J.P.Sengh, Senior Advocate with Mr Raghu Verma,
Ms Udita Sharma, Ms Manisha Mehta, Ms Vaishali
Tanwar and Ms Mrigna Shekhar for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
LPA 622/2016& CM Nos.41497/2016(stay), 41496/2016(delay in
filing petition for 129 days)
1. The appellants have preferred an appeal against the order of the
learned Single Judge who directed the Revenue Secretary, the
Government of NCT of Delhi, to decide the request of the writ
petitioners within four weeks.
2. The brief facts are that the village Mundka was notified for
consolidation in 1972. On 24.03.1992, the lands in the village were
vested in the Gaon Sabha. In the meanwhile, apparently, one Asha
Sabharwal, who claimed to have purchased the subject land from its
owner, approached the Financial Commissioner against an order of
23.07.1993. By that order, oneSurat Singh had been allotted two
holding; including 1 bigha four biswas in the consolidation
proceeding (later being subject-matter of the present proceeding). The
consolidation was declared closed and the proceedings attained
finality on 25.06.1998, by the order of the concerned Officer, i.e., the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate(SDM).
3. The Financial Commissioner, on 22.06.2010, allowed the
Revision preferred by Asha Sabharwal and set aside the order dated
24.03.1992. This meant that the allotment made during the
intervening period, i.e. on 23.07.1993, in effect stood nullified.
4. The allottee - Surat Singh had, in the meanwhile, sold the
property to the writ petitioners on 20.01.2010 through a registered sale
deed. The transaction was also reflected in the revenue record by an
entry on 04.03.2010. This aspect is crucial, as on the date when the
Financial Commissioner made the order in favour of the third party -
Asha Sabharwal, third party rights had accrued in favour of the writ
petitioners. In these circumstances, the writ petitioners again
approached the concerned authorities for relief.
5. On 29.03.2011, the writ petitioners sought liberty to withdraw
the proceeding before the Financial Commissioner. The
circumstances, in which the proceedings were withdrawn before the
Financial Commissioner, are interesting. A contempt proceeding was
filed before the Financial Commissioner on behalf of the writ
petitioners. In that proceeding, the Revenue Authorities had filed a
status report and sought time to implement the order, whereby the
land could be made available to the writ petitioners. In the
meanwhile, they sought for enforcement. In the proceeding, an
assurance was held out that another plot would be given. Later, an
affidavit was filed in the following terms:-
"6.It is stated as there is no land available in
Village Mundka. It is stated however that the
exercise of identifying a vacant piece of land
measuring 01-04 bigha in Villages other than
Village Mundka in the revenue estate of Sub-
Division Punjabi Bagh, was undertaken and it
was informed by the BDO (West) vide letter dated
05.04.2016 that land is available in Village
Bakkarwala, Delhi. True copy of the letter dated
05.04.2016 of the BDO(West) is annexed herewith
as Annexure R-1.
7. It is stated that permission of the Secretary,
Department of Revenue has to be sought as to
whether the land can be allotted in Village
Bakkarwala as the case of allotment of land
relates to the period during the consolidation of
Village Mundka."
6. Having regard to the above circumstances, the learned Single
Judge, on the basis of the following reasoning, disposed of the writ
petition :-
"............The grievance of the petitioner is that
aforesaid order has not yet been complied with
and the land has not been allotted till date.
Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that no land is available in village
Mundka. It is further submitted that the exercise of
identifying a vacant piece of land measuring 1
bigha 4 biswas in villages other than village
Mundka in the revenue estate of Sub Division
Punjabi Bagh was done and the Block
Development Officer(West) vide letter dated
05.04.2016 informed that land is available in
Village Bakkarwala, Delhi. Accordingly, file has
been processed further and permission of the
Secretary, Department of Revenue has been
sought as to whether the land can be allotted in
Village Bakkarwala as the case of allotment of
land relates to the period during the consolidation
of village Mundka.
In the above facts, it is directed that the order
of the Financial Commissioner dated 22.06.2010
be complied with and land admeasuring 1bigha 4
biswas be allotted to the petitioner, if not
available in village Mundka then in village
Bakkarwala, Delhi, which land the petitioner is
ready to accept. This writ petition is disposed of
with directions to the Secretary, Revenue
Department to decide thisrequest of the
respondent No.1within four weeks. Thereafter,
order of the Financial Commissioner be complied
within a period of two months."
7. It is contended by the appellants that the order is
unimplementable because in the absence of any surplus land in the
village, allotment is not possible to the writ petitioners. It was
submitted that once the vesting order of 1992 itself was set aside, the
rights, which accrued to Surat Singh, could not have been relied upon
by the writ petitioners.
8. Besides contending that the third party Asha Sabharwal would
be adversely affected and that the impugned order; itreally results in a
direction to allot fresh land when none is available and that it has wide
ramification.
9. The Court is of the opinion that since the impugned order of
the Financial Commissioner which, in fact, noticed the compromise
between the parties, was never interfered or called in question at a
stage when the writ petitioners sought its implementation, the
appellants could not have re-siled and taken a different position. That,
indeed such a representation was held out, is evident from the
affidavit filed in the course of the writ proceedings - apparent from
the extracts at paras 6 & 7, reproduced above.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, no intervention to the
impugned order is called for.
The Appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 22, 2017
'Sn'
