Delhi High Court
Rajeev Sharma vs Shri Raj Kumar & Ors. on 4 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: October 04, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2124/2016 & CM 9120/2016
RAJEEV SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate
versus
SHRI RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha,
Ms. Worthing Kasar and Ms.
Raunika Johar, Advocates for
respondents No. 3, 4 and 5
Mr. Sumit Aggarwal, Advocate for
respondent No. 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 10th November, 2015 sets aside the order of 30th
May, 2012 of the concerned Collector and thereby restores the order of
3rd February, 1982 of the Revenue Assistant.
2. It is matter of record that the Revenue Assistant's order was ex
parte and even the order of the concerned Collector was ex parte. The
Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has taken note of delay of
more than 24 years in filing of the appeal by petitioner herein. Strangely,
the concerned Collector does not deal with the delay aspect and maintains
that the delay is presumed to be condoned. To say the least, such a
course is not open as inordinate delay needs to be cogently explained.
Otherwise, it leads to injustice.
3. After having heard both the sides at length, it has now transpired
that respondents' application was for correction of Khasra/Girdawari and
not for correction of the mutation. It is no longer res integra that
Khasra/Girdawari does not confer a title.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that an application for
correction of mutation was infact filed as the concerned Revenue
Collector has directed expunging of name of petitioner's predecessor-in-
interest from the revenue record. It is also matter of record that the aspect
of respondents' application being one for correction of Khasra/Girdawari
was never an issue before the authorities below.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, injustice cannot be allowed
to perpetuate on a mere technicality. Substantial justice is required to be
done. Since the parties have all along treated the application for
correction of Khasra/Girdawari as the one relating to title i.e. of
correction of mutation, therefore, respondents cannot be non-suited on
this mere technicality. What stares in the face is the delay aspect. In the
instant case, there is an unexplained delay of about 24 years to which the
concerned Collector has closed its eyes on a lame plea that the delay is
presumed to be condoned. It cannot be so. The Financial Commissioner
has drawn adverse inference against the concerned Collector on this
account and rightly so. On merits, the Financial Commissioner had
perused the record and had found that petitioner's predecessor-in-interest,
i.e. Bal Kishan, had refused to accept the Notice sent by the concerned
Revenue Assistant and Madan Mohan, who was also a predecessor-in-
interest of petitioner, had appeared before the Revenue Assistant on 16th
September, 1981 and the order-sheet of the next date i.e. 30th September,
1981, records that above-said Madan Mohan was present on the last date
of hearing, but had absented himself and so, proceeded ex parte.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has
asserted that the records need to be requisitioned to find out as to whether
Madan Mohan, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, had signed the order-
sheet or not. Such an exercise is uncalled for as there is no basis to
dispute the records so produced before the Financial Commissioner.
Otherwise also, in the instant case, inordinate and unexplained delay
assumes importance. After more than two decades, old record cannot
possibly be traced. It is no longer res integra that the law assists those,
who are vigilant and not those, who are indolent.
7. Consequentially, I find that the impugned order of 10 th November,
2015 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, this petition
and the pending application are dismissed while leaving the parties to
bear their own cost.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 04, 2018
v
