Angoori Devi vs Deputy Commissioner South West Distt. and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 2010 of the respondent No. 2 (Tehsildar, Tehsil - Palam, District-South West) recording Dhaincha crop in Kharif and production of honey in Rabi 2010 seasons with respect to the subject land in the name of the respondents No. 5 to 11. It is the case of the petitioner that it is in fact she who is in possession of the said land and recorded so by the Patwari in the Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 2004 to Rabi 2009 and continues to be in possession of the said land. The petitioner has preferred appeal against the order aforesaid of the Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 1) and which appeal is stated to be listed next on 13th October, 2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the said appeal she has made an application to restrain the respondents No. 5 to 11 from taking possession of the said land but the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 22nd June, 2010 has erroneously recorded that "no issue regarding any forcible eviction was raised". It is further the case of the petitioner that in a civil suit instituted by her against respondents No. 5 to 11, the said respondents by an interim order dated 30th March, 2009 of the Court of the Civil Judge and which order is stated to be still in force, have already been restrained form forcibly evicting the petitioner from the said land.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:

(a) Pass writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for keeping the order dated 13th May, 2010 in abeyance and no further effect be given to it in future in the revenue records till the disposal of present appeal.

(b) Pass order for transfer of/transferring the appeal from DC Office, Kapashera South West Distt. to DC Office of North West Distt. Kanjhawala, Delhi.

(c) Issue direction for early disposal of appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably before the recording of next crop, i.e. by 31st August, 2010.

(d) Issue direction to SHO Chhawla that the settled possession of the petitioner be not disturbed/forcibly take over by respondents No. 5 to 11 and their family members and relatives.

As aforesaid, there is already an order of the Civil Court protecting the petitioner against forcible dispossession. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by any misrecording in the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal aforesaid preferred by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner in this regard.

A party cannot at its whim and fancy seek a direction for expeditious disposal of appeals/proceedings pending before the Revenue Authorities. this Court would certainly issue directions for early/expeditious disposal if finds any unusual delay or such delay as is affecting a party prejudicially. Else, the party which approaches this Court cannot be given priority over other proceedings, may be for longer pending before such Authorities. In the present case, no case is made out for issuing any such direction for expeditious disposal.

The petitioner has lastly sought the relief of transfer of appeal from the Deputy Commissioner before which it is presently pending to another Deputy Commissioner. Not finding any reason there for in the memorandum of petition, the attorney of the petitioner was asked whether any plea on oath has been taken in this regard. The attorney of the petitioner could not immediately show any such averment and sought passover. The attorney of the petitioner has now drawn attention to the list of dates wherein against the date of 13th May, 2010 it is written "Tehsildar mala fidely passed impugned order for recording the Dhancha crop in the name of respondents No. 5 to 10 under the pressure of DC where R-5 is working". The list of dates is for the convenience of the Court and is not supported by any affidavit. No relief on the basis of a statement in the list of dates and which statement/plea is not taken in the memorandum of petition which is required to be and is supported with affidavit can be granted. Even otherwise the averment and the argument raised, is vague. It has not been stated that as to on what post the respondent No. 5 is working in the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. It has not been disclosed as to how the respondent No. 5 is in position to exert influence on the Deputy Commissioner or on officers subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner this Court on the basis of such vague averments cannot entertain any doubt that the Deputy Commissioner concerned, in the exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial or even administrative function, would not act in accordance with law or would be prejudicial to the petitioner or favourable to the respondents No. 5 to 11. The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. The Company Law Board and Others, it was held "The allegations of malafide are often more easily made than prove d and the very seriousness of such an allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute the evidence. An allegation of malafide, an indirect motive or purpose cannot be held established except on a clear proof thereof". Thus no case for grant of transfer also is made out.

There is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

CM No. 9152/2010 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.