Delhi High Court
Rajeev Dhingra vs Fiancial Commissioner & Ors. on 9 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 09, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10471/2009
RAJEEV DHINGRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Mr. Shreshtha
Nanda & Mr. D.R. Kishore, Advocates
Versus
FIANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal, Mr. Sunit
Choudhary & Ms. Aakansha Bansal, Advocates
for respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order of 26th June, 2009
wherein the finding returned is as under:-
"In fact, as per the Scheme, for allotment of the land
within the Lal Dora, there is a provision that the person
should be the resident of the Village for more than 20 years
and the respondent No.5 is not the resident of the Village and
as such he is not entitled for allotment of any land. In lieu of
withdrawal, he can be easily allotted agricultural land. After
all, he cannot be given any benefit of allotment of the land
within the Lal Dora. If he is being given the benefit of
allotment of the land within the Lal Dora then it will amount
to violating the Scheme or with the gazette notification issued
by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which is the guiding
principle for allotment of the land to the persons, who are
residents of the Village for more than 20 years or so."
2. The stand of petitioner, as noticed in the impugned order, is as
under:-
"That the basic claim of Petitioners is based on the
provisions of consolidation Scheme and the same has been
admitted during the course of arguments by the counsels
for the respondents. It is specific submission of the
petitioners that his pre-consolidation land bearing Khasra
No.29/8/2(1-14) was included within the extended Lal
Dora of the Village during the process of reparation as per
the Scheme and there is a provision in the Scheme that the
land which has been included within the Lal Dora will be
allotted to the persons, who are the owners of the said land
before consolidation. Now it is on the basis of this
provision of the Scheme, the Petitioners are claiming
allotment of this land, being their preferential right
thereupon."
3. The challenge to the impugned order by petitioner's counsel is on
the ground that order of 11th November, 2004, which was assailed by
third respondent herein, did not pertain to subject land i.e. Khasra
No.106/359/2 of village Khera Kalan. Petitioner's counsel submits that
order of 11th November, 2004 was in respect of inter se dispute between
third respondent and one -Jagat Singh. It is submitted that 08 biswas of
land out of subject land was withdrawn from the predecessor-in-interest
of petitioner and was allotted to Jagat Singh and third respondent herein
was allotted 08 biswas of land, after withdrawing it from Jagat Singh and
one bigha in Plot No.106/359/2 was never the subject matter of
consideration in the order of 11th November, 2004 and therefore, the
Financial Commissioner, Delhi was not justified in holding that in lieu of
withdrawal of subject plot from petitioner, he can be easily allotted
agricultural land.
4. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that requirement of being a
resident of village for more than twenty years would not apply to the case
of petitioner, as he had stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar, who was
predecessor-in-interest of petitioner in relation to the subject plot. It is
further submitted by petitioner's counsel that third respondent had
challenged consolidation proceedings in the year 2001 and so, it cannot
be said that he had come to know about inclusion of subject plot in
extended Lal Dora in the year 2006 and so, the revision petition filed by
third respondent is hopelessly barred by time and Financial
Commissioner has erred in entertaining third respondent's revision
petition. It is submitted that Rule 6(k) of The Delhi Holdings
(Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (henceforth
referred to as Prevention of Fragmentation Rules) cannot bar petitioner
because he had stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar, who was
predecessor-in-interest in respect of subject plot. Thus, it is submitted
that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and allotment of subject
plot deserves to be restored to petitioner.
5. On the contrary, counsel for third respondent supports the
impugned order and submits that petitioner has been rightly excluded as
Rule 6(k) of Prevention of Fragmentation Rules bars petitioner from
allotment of subject plot and his interest has been taken care of, as he
would be allotted agricultural land, which would be of double the value.
Nothing else is urged by either side.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 26 th June, 2009
and the material on record, I find that preferential right of allotment in
consolidation proceedings has to be considered in light of Prevention of
Fragmentation Rules. Rule 6(k) of aforesaid Prevention of
Fragmentation Rules makes it abundantly clear that for allotment of plot
in the extended Lal Dora, allottee has to be a resident of village for last
twenty years. Undisputedly, petitioner herein had purchased the subject
land in December 2005 and prior thereto, on application of respondent -
Jagat Singh, 08 biswas out of subject plot, was allotted to said Jagat
Singh. Since petitioner is ranked outsider and not resident of village for
last twenty years, therefore, occasion to challenge petitioner's right arose
after December, 2005, as petitioner had purchased the subject plot in
December, 2005 only. Respondent-Jai Bhagwan had filed a revision
petition against order of 11th November, 2004 of Consolidation Officer in
May, 2006. So, it cannot be said that respondent -Jai Bhagwan had
belatedly challenged petitioner's entitlement to the subject plot.
Otherwise also, Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 gives unfettered right to
Financial Commissioner, Delhi to examine the legality or propriety of an
order passed, even if the consolidation scheme is confirmed. The only
rider in aforesaid Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 is that any variation of order has
to be after notice to the affected parties. In the instant case, violation of
principles of natural justice is not the plea put-forth by petitioner. It is a
matter of record that consolidation proceedings in the village in question
are still continuing. That is to say, consolidation scheme in question is not
confirmed.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is not resident of
the village for a period of twenty years, as required by Section 6(k) of the
Prevention of Fragmentation Rules and therefore, withdrawal of plot No.
106/359/1 and 106/359/2 from petitioner and its allotment to respondent -
Jai Bhagwan cannot be faulted with. The conclusion arrived at, by
Financial Commissioner in the impugned order of petitioner being
subsequent purchaser and so, cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of
the scheme, is fully justified. In view of withdrawal of subject plot from
petitioner, the Revenue Authorities have been directed vide impugned
order to allot agricultural land to petitioner as per his entitlement.
8. In light of the aforesaid, finding no illegality or palpable error in
the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 09, 2018
r
