Delhi High Court
Rajpal Singh vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: September 17, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2652/2007
RAJPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Mohit K. Bafna,
Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 16th November, 2006 (Annexure P-24) upholds
Appellate Order of 20th April, 2006 (Annexure P-20), wherein it has been
held that petitioner-Objector in his objections of 19th January, 2000
(Annexure P-6) had never demanded allotment of plot No.27 to him and
it is so reflected in the order of 9th August, 2001. It is also noted in the
order of 20th April, 2006 (Annexure P-20) that petitioner had confined his
prayer to allotment of plot Nos. 29, 30 & 31. The Consolidation Officer,
vide order of 8th January, 2002, has accepted petitioner's objections and
has allotted plot No.27 and 28, as reflected in the Akshsirza (Annexure-
P-21).
2. It is a matter of record that Consolidation Officer's order of 8 th
January, 2002 (Annexure P-14) has been passed in the absence of
respondent-Rajbir, who was proceeded ex parte. Impugned order of 16th
November, 2006 (Annexure P-24) notes that Appellate Authority has
rightly concluded that petitioner herein had restricted his preference to
allotment of plot Nos. 29, 30 & 31 and had dropped his request for
allotment of plot No.28.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned orders of 20 th
April, 2006 (Annexure P-20) and 16th November, 2006 (Annexure P-24)
on the ground that petitioner had never given up the claim of plot Nos. 27
& 28. Attention of this Court is drawn to petitioner's cross objections of
19th January, 2000 (Annexure P-6) to point out that petitioner had
specifically requested the residential plot Nos.28,29 &30 on Phirni Road,
which have not been allotted to anybody so far, be allotted to him.
Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's entitlement to allotment of
aforesaid plots has not been considered by the Appellate and Revisional
Authorities and so, the impugned orders of the Appellate and Revisional
Authorities be set aside and order of 8th January, 2002 (Annexure P-14)
deserves to be restored.
4. On the contrary, counsel for respondent-Rajbir Singh supports the
impugned order and submits that petitioner had not indicated any
preferences in the demand made and so, there is no justification to set
aside the impugned orders.
5. On behalf of respondent-Krishan Kumar, it is submitted that he had
purchased plot No.27 and part of Plot No.28 from respondent- Rajbir
Singh after limitation to challenge the Appellate Authority's order had
expired and after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Revenue
Authorities and so, there is no justification to disturb the allotment so
made vide impugned order.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders of 20 th April,
2006 (Annexure P-20) and 16th November, 2006 (Annexure P-24) and the
record of this case, I find that vide order of 8 th January, 2002 (Annexure
P-14), allotment of subject plots i.e. Plot Nos. 106/27 (0-12) and 106/28
(1-10), has been made in favour of petitioner without justifying as to why
these plots were withdrawn from second respondent and were allotted to
petitioner. Pertinently, Consolidation Officer's order of 8th January, 2002
(Annexure P-24) is an ex parte order. Appellate Court vide order of 20th
April, 2006 (Annexure P-20), has set aside the aforesaid order of 8th
January, 2002 (Annexure P-14) and has allotted subject plots to second
respondent herein while observing that petitioner had dropped his prayer
for allotment of subject plots. The Financial Commissioner, Delhi, vide
impugned order of 16th November, 2006 (Annexure P-24), has upheld the
Appellate Order of 20th April, 2006 (Annexure P-20) while observing that
petitioner has restricted his claim to allotment of Plot No.29,30 & 31. To
say the least, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority
has not considered the subject matter of this petition in light of the
Consolidation Scheme for village Khera Kalan.
7. In the consolidation proceedings, in the first instance, re-allocation
of plots is made by lottery but consent of parties is required to be given
due weightage and it is to be ensured that no excess benefit is given to
any party and the location and value of plot has to be also considered.
Alienation of plots by sale cannot be the justification to refrain from
interfering with impugned orders in the consolidation proceedings, as it
has to be seen whether mutation of such plots is done after sale or not.
The objective of consolidation scheme is that big bhumidars are to be re-
allocated during consolidation proceedings not at one place but at two or
three places. Merely because petitioner had staked his claim to plot Nos.
28, 29 & 30 also, would not justify rejection of petitioner's revision
petition on the ground that he had not opted for the subject plots. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the appropriate course to adopt in a case
where the order of 8th January, 2002 (Annexure P-14) is a non-speaking
and ex parte order, is to remand back the matter to the Consolidation
Officer for reconsideration. In the fitness of things, it is deemed
appropriate to direct the Consolidation Officer to reconsider the
objections filed by petitioner after hearing both the sides and to pass a
speaking order in the light of Consolidation Scheme of 18 th June, 1999
(Annexure P-2) within a period of sixteen weeks from the date so fixed.
While setting aside the impugned orders of 8th January, 2002 (Annexure
P-14) passed by Consolidation Officer; Appellate Order of 20th April,
2006 (Annexure P-20) and Revisional Order of 16th November, 2006
(Annexure P-24), this petition is disposed of with direction to the parties
to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 5th October, 2018.
8. The concerned Consolidation Officer be apprised of this order
forthwith to ensure its compliance. It is made clear that the merits of this
case have not been commented upon by this Court and it is left open to
the Consolidation Officer to consider it in accordance with the law.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
r
