Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 WRIT PETITION
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995 Date of Decision : July 14th , 2008. NARAIN SINGH & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners. Through Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI ..... Respondent. Through Mr. V.K.Tandon with Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent nos.1-4. Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mayank Yadav, Advocate for respondents 2-3. SANJIV KHANNA, J.: 1. Mr. Narain Singh and Mr. Som Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, for short) claim that they have purchased 2 bighas 18 biswas and 2 bighas of land, respectively in khasra No. 6/19/2 (min) village Samepur, Delhi vide two separate sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 executed by one Mr. Maman Singh. The said Mr. Maman Singh is father of Mr. Som Dutt. After purchase of land vide sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989, the petitioners had applied for mutation under the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Act). Mr. Maman Singh was a recorded bhumidar of the land till sale deeds were made. Mutation entries were allowed in favour of the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 10th February, 1995 passed by the Financial Commissioner, the mutation entries have been cancelled. Impugned Order 2. The Financial Commissioner, has held, that the aforesaid land consisting of 4 bighas and 18 biswas was subject matter of proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act, for short) and was ordered to be vested in the Gaon Sabha by order passed by SDM/Revenue Assistant dated 7th February, 1984 and, therefore, mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 are liable to be set aside. Financial Commissioner has further held that Mr. Maman Singh had earlier executed sale deeds dated 9th March, 1970 in favour of one Mr. Bhai Ram and the said Mr. Maman Singh had also made a statement before Mr. Nathu Singh, Revenue Assistant in Case No. 62/RA/81 that the land in question had never been cultivated by him. Apart from these reasons, the Financial Commissioner has held that sale of land by Mr. Maman Singh to the petitioners by two sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 had resulted in violation of Section 33 of the Reforms Act as Mr. Maman Singh was left with uneconomic holding in form of land in extended abadi located in khasra No.23/18/2 measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas and, therefore, consequences as stipulated in Section 42 of the Reforms Act would follow. In these circumstances, mutation entries made under the Revenue Act in favour of the petitioners were directed to be cancelled with a direction that the land would vest with the Gaon Sabha/Union of India. The Financial Commissioner also observed that once mutations in favour of the petitioners were held to be invalid, then the petition under Section 85 of the Reforms Act filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Mohinder Singh and Mr.Rajinder Singh, against the petitioners was also not maintainable. In these circumstances, the petition filed by private respondents herein viz. respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was held to be incompetent and dismissed. Litigations 3. There have been three proceedings amongst the parties. Two proceedings were before the authorities under the Revenue and the Reforms Act. The petitioners have also filed a civil suit. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in November, 1989 filed a petition under Section 85 of the Reforms Act against the petitioners. This petition was subsequently amended. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that they were in possession of the land for a period of more than three years and the recorded bhumidars had failed to eject them and accordingly they should be declared bhumidars. It was stated that Mr. Maman Singh was wrongly recorded as a bhumidar of the land till 4th May, 1989 and thereafter the petitioners have been wrongly recorded as bhumidars. 5. Notice on this petition was issued to the petitioners who had entered appearance. The said petition was dismissed by an ex parte order dated 4th June, 1990. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they were never served with notice for the hearing fixed on 4th June, 1990 and the case in fact had been adjourned to 25th June, 1990. I have examined the order passed by the Revenue Assistant on 4th June, 1990. The said order is a non-speaking and a non- reasoned order. It records the contentions of the petitioners herein and without any discussion holds that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not been able to make out a prima facie case. I may note here that the parties had not led any evidence before the Revenue Assistant. 6. Against order dated 4th June, 1990, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein filed an application for review/restoration, an appeal before Additional Collector/ADM and a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. Review/restoration application was dismissed. The revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed as withdrawn as not maintainable. The appeal filed before Additional Collector/ADM was also dismissed on the ground that a restoration application had been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Revenue Assistant. However, this order passed by Additional Collector/ADM was set aside by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 12th December, 1991. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Additional Collector/ADM for decision of the first appeal on merits by the Financial Commissioner vides order dated 12th December, 1991. 7. By another order dated 12th December, 1991, the Financial Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 66 of the Revenue Act. In the said appeal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein had challenged the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners and the two separate orders dated 9th August, 1991 passed by Additional Collector dismissing the challenge to the mutation orders dated 31st May, 1991. The Additional Collector, Delhi had dismissed appeals on the technical ground that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 31st May, 1989 was not enclosed with the grounds of appeal. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated 12th December, 1991 held that the appeals were rightly dismissed by the Additional Collector as certified copy of the impugned order had not been enclosed. He, however, held that the appeal filed by the petitioners should be treated as a petition under Section 71 of the Revenue Act and the Additional Collector should examine the legality or propriety of the mutation order. 8. As a result of the two orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, both dated 12th December, 1991, the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dismissing their application under Section 85 of the Reforms Act was revived to be decided on merits and the Additional Collector was also required to examine the complaint made by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 71 of the Revenue Act. 9. Additional Collector by two orders dated 10th January, 1994 disposed of both matters. Appeal under Section 85 of the Reforms Act was dismissed on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not been able to produce evidence that they were in continuous cultivatory possession of the land for more than three years and, therefore, cannot claim bhumidari rights. It was stated that Mr. Maman Singh was a recorded bhumidar of the land since 1981. The complaint under Section 71 of the Revenue Act was also dismissed holding that there was no violation of Section 33 of the Reforms Act and Rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder. It was observed that the sale deed dated 4th march, 1970 stated to have been executed by Mr. Maman Singh in favour of Mr. Bhai Ram was not free from suspicion as the Sub-Registrar’s office had stated that the document was not on record. 10. The, abovementioned two orders passed by the Additional Collector were made subject matter of appeal/proceedings before the Financial Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 12/94-CA and 13/94-CA. The first appeal was filed under Section 185(4) of the Reforms Act and the second appeal was filed under Section 72 of the Revenue Act. Appeal under the Reforms Act was disposed of by an order dated 4th February, 1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner remanding the matter back once again to the Additional Collector holding that he had failed to examine the matter on merits. Observations were also made against the Revenue Assistant, who had proceeded to dispose of the petition under Section 85 of the Reforms Act on merits without recording evidence and in the absence of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Financial Commissioner made reference to the statement of Mr. Maman Singh made before the Revenue Assistant in Case No. 162/RA/81 as well as vesting of land in Union of India/Gaon Sabha pursuant to the order passed by the Revenue Assistant under Section 81 of the Reforms Act vide order dated 4th February, 1984. 11. Appeal under Section 72 of the Revenue Act was also disposed of remanding the matter back to be decided afresh. However, while disposing of the appeal, the Financial Commissioner rejected the contention of the petitioners herein that the said appeal was not maintainable under Section 72 of the Revenue Act against the order passed under Section 71.