Sh. Mohinder Singh and Others vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—The appellants came to occupy land of one Sh. Mir Singh unauthorizedly and thereafter, on 06.02.1978, filed an application u/s 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ("the DLR Act" for short) in respect of the said land claiming bhoomidari rights. The claim of the appellants was predicated on the plea of continuous cultivatory possession and the absence of any action by Sh. Mir Singh u/s 84 of the DLR Act for ejectment of the appellants. The land was alleged to be one of 123 bighas and 5 biswas and included plot No. 415 situated in the revenue estate of village Bijwasan, New Delhi, which plot is the subject matter of dispute.

Sh. Mir Singh appeared in pursuance to the notice issued by the competent revenue authority and admitted the claim of the appellants. This resulted in an order being passed by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi on 26.02.1979 declaring the appellants to be the bhoomidars of the land.

It may be noticed that prior to the institution of the aforesaid proceedings, a scheme for consolidation was sought to be prepared for the village Bijwasan under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as per a notification dated 27.03.1974 giving opportunity to the right holders to make demands for residential plot in extended Lal Dora phirni within the stipulated time. The appellants alleged that Sh. Mir Singh s/o of Sh. Ram Nath made such a demand for residential plot measuring 5 bighas as per an application dated 26.06.1975 and was allotted residential plot No. 415 measuring 6 bighas and 6 biswas on 25.10.1975. The appellants claimed that since the portion of consolidation of holdings related only to agricultural land and right holders, the appellants had no concern with the same which land became vested in the Consolidation Officer and ceased to be transferable. The repartition of agricultural land was announced by the Consolidation Officer only on 03.12.1975 and objections invited which were subsequently disposed of.

The grievance of the appellants began with the action of the Consolidation Officer who made an entry for allotment of plot No. 415 to Sh. Mir Singh while the appellants claimed to be in actual possession. Such an entry was made vide Resolution No. 63 min dated 01.03.1979 to 03.03.1979. This action of the Consolidation Officer was set aside in a revision petition by the Financial Commissioner vide an order dated 13.11.1984. However, despite this fact, vide the same order a direction was issued vesting the plot in Gaon Sabha. This order of vesting was challenged by the appellants in WP(C)2742/1984.

The writ petition was allowed on 06.08.2004 with the directions to the Financial Commissioner whereby the impugned order of vesting of plot No. 415 was quashed and the matter remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to determine a fresh limited question whether or not the allotment made in favour of appellants suffered from any illegality.

The matter was once again examined by the Financial Commissioner and the relevant record was summoned. It was found that while the claim of the appellants was based on the fact that they stepped into the shoes of Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath who had made the application for allotment of the plot in phirni, the name of Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath was not found in the relevant record nor were the names of the appellants were found in the same. The "Part Patwar" being the relevant record was perused for the same. On the other hand, it was found that one Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Shiv Lal made such an application but only for one bigha whereas the plot No. 415 was of 6 bighas and 6 biswas. It was thus concluded that neither the appellants nor their predecessor in interest had made any demand for allotment of land in the extended Lal Dora during the consolidation proceedings and thus there could not have been any allotment of plot No. 415 to the appellants which was directed to vest in the Gaon Sabha.

The appellants aggrieved by this order filed WP(C) No. 1678-84/2006 before this Court, which has been dismissed in terms of the impugned order dated 08.02.2006.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order.

It is quite apparent that the limited controversy arises from the claim of the appellants that they stepped into the shoes of Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath who in turn had made an application for allotment of land in phirni at the stage of the consolidation proceedings. Since the agricultural land in question stood vested in the appellants as a bhoomidar u/s 85 of the DLR Act and they having also purchased the land from Mr. Mir Singh during pre-consolidation stage, the appellants claimed entitlement of benefit of the demand made by Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath. The relevant application was claimed to have been made on 26.06.1975 by Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath. The aforesaid claim was considered by the Financial Commissioner by summoning the relevant record, but no such application was found on the record. The only claim was by one Sh. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Shiv Lal and that too only of one bigha. In the absence of any claim of Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath, the very substratum of the claim of the appellants disappeared and it is this aspect which has also found favour with the learned Single Judge.

The counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge did seek to raise an alternative plea that they had an independent right to make a demand, but such a demand could have been made only when the appellants were declared bhoomidars of the land. This plea was rejected on the ground that this was never the submission of the appellants in the earlier proceedings initiated by them by filing WP(C) 2742/84 challenging the vesting of the land in the Gaon Sabha. The claim was predicated only on Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath having made an application within the time allotted under the consolidation proceedings. In this behalf, another important aspect taken note of by the learned Single Judge is that the Consolidation Officer while allotting the land in Khasra No. 415 to the appellants had done so by withdrawing certain areas outside and not in reference to any demands of the appellants.

The respondents have also submitted that the appellants have, in fact, sold the entire land of 122 bighas and 7 bigwas to various purchasers and have been left with not even an inch of land.

It has further been pleaded that the appellants could not have been declared bhoomidars of plot No. 415 on 26.02.1979 before even the date of allotment stipulated for the land in phirni i.e. 01.03.1979 to 03.03.1979. The learned Single Judge of this Court while remanding the matter before the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 06.08.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 2742/1984 had directed to determine afresh the limited question whether or not the allotment in favour of the appellants suffered from any illegality and thereafter on the objections being filed by Mr. Mohinder Singh and Others (vendees of Mir Singh) the Financial Commissioner passed the fresh order.

We find force in contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that the very sub stratum of the case of the appellants failed once a finding was reached that no application for such allotment of land in phirni was made by their predecessor in interest Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath or even by the appellants and the appellants were trying to take advantage of an application made by Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Shiv Lal, which is a different person and the application is also for a much lesser area.

We thus find no infirmity with the impugned order.

Dismissed.