Satpal & Ors v. Consolidation Officer Basant Vihar

I-J' 'U F) THE high' COU.^T OF DELHI AT MEW DELHI Date of deci5ion:6.3.2012 +■ LPA No.659/2009 & CM APPL. 18750/2009 (for additional documents) ANAND PRAKASH ■ M Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh/ Advocate. versus . CONSOLIDATION OFFICER RESPONDENT BASANTVIHAR . >1. ' . ' Through: Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Criaudhary, Advocate. • • i ' APiHID + ' LPA No.660/2009 &. CM. APPL. 18752/2009 (for additionai documents) SATPAL&ORS _ Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate. versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER RESPONDENT BASANTVIHAR . . -.km Through: Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate with Mir. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate GORAMs HON'BLE THE ACTIl^G CHIEF JUSTICE : "HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW SIKIRI. ACTING-CHIEF JUSTICE; (ORAL) H l'._, - " . ' 1. These two appeals are filed'against common judgment dated »i'

11.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the two writ :LPA.659/2009 & 660/2009 ■M ..,"l a,; -4: & Hi iitt s petitions, filed by the appellants: herein. The case of both the ,appellants is similar based on almost Identlcatgrounds. nnn , ' 1 ( m the revenue estate of Village B^mnoll, Delhi consolidation ^proceedings were started sometime in the year 1993 by Issuance of . •Notification under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings ;^(Cohsolidatlon and'f Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 '::(herelnafter referred^to as ■the Act'), This Scheme was finalized on

11.4:1997. The provisions of the said Act and the Scheme entitled the .Bhumidars of the agricultural land to In the consolidation proceedings, ■claim a residential' plot. The appellants claim to have made r^pplications on 15.7.1995 for allotment of plot. According to the It; appellants, no action was taken thereupon. The case of the respondents is that ho such applications were filed. Applications to the rf ■ •h-' 'iame effect were filed on 21.9.2005 but were dismissed by the } j Consolidation Officer on 19.11.2005 and 26.10.2005 respectively on " . : the ground that the file had been consigned to the record room and Ifain: , he had become functus officio. rf:/ ■ . ; . The appellants filed revision petitions thereagainst under T-section 42 of the said Act, before the Financial Commissioner. Those |:v: were also dismissed vide orders dated 5.12.2008. The reason given :■ LPA 659/2009 & 660/2009 Page-Z of 6 -/'i-T m T * '¥ ' . . r, w, ;? ' "j , -'s . ' 1'/^ if» \ I " i' 't; n 'lii < "'n 4 ! ,11 ■i by. the Financial Commissioner for dismissing the revision petitions was that the appellants were not the bona fide residents of the village Bamnoli, Delhi and in fact thiy were residing In village Bljwasan. 4, Against the orders of the Financial. Commissioner, the appellants ' had preferred the aforesaid 'Writ petitions which were dismissed by the ■ learned Single Judge vide orders dated 11.11.2009. V.- ' , ■ ■ , V

¶5Perusal of the Impugned order of the learned Single Judge would show that it was not disputed by the appellants that as per Rule 6 of the Bdhl Holdings (Consolidation & Preventio^ of Fragmentation) , Rules, 1959, only persons holding agricultural land for a period of 20 If iears "0"^ be entitled ta consideration for allotment of residential •V[' plots under a scheme of consolidation. The learned Single Judge has ' 'observed that the only grievance made was that one Bhagwan s/o of ' Lh 'Dalel who was a joint khatedar and co-bhumidar of the petitioner pas allotted a residential plot under the similar circumstances. This jcontentlon has been rejected by the learned Sihgle Judge observing jthat even if the allotment In favour of Sh. Bhagwan has been made jbnian erroneous consideration of the rules, that would not create or iconfer any right on any other person even ifjSimilariy situated; In Icaije allotment is effected which is in violation bf the statutory rules. LPA 659/2009 & 660/2009 if] A 'W l^^l or wfw.' L: m W S lit ' w the proper remedy is to proceed against such an allotment. This line of action of the learned Single jjudge Is perfectly In order. Merely because Mr. Bhagwan was allotted plot erroneously would not mean that any right accrues to the appellants as well, even when they do hot fulfill the conditions of allotment as per the Delhi Holdings Rules.

¶6Learned Counsel for the appellants,, however argued that the appellants had made out a specific case that they were bona fide residents of the .village Bamnoli for'more than 20 years and have " placed documents In'Support of their dalm'whlch were not looked Into ^ and Ignored by the Financial Commissioner :whlle passing .jthe order. The appellants have even filed some more documents with application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to bolster t:he aforesaid submission of ' being bonaflde residents of village Bamnoli. In the first Instance, we may observe that the order of the learned Single Judge does not show that this contention was taken at the time of arguments.' There Is no whisper of any such contention, which therefore has not been dealt with. On the contrary, the learned Single Judge has observed that even when additional affidavit has been filed by the appellants, tl^e factual position, (namely that the appellants are not the bona fide residents ^ for the last 20 years of LPA 659/2009 & 660/2009 M /Si® ■I-' L V I'ViIlage Bamnoli) isinot disputed. I I tw> I ft In any case;, we find that the matter was examined by the ;::Fina'nciai Commissioner on this aspect as well. In the application filed y. by the appellants for allotment of resicjantiai plots in village Bamnoli, they had shown thjamselves as resident,.of village Bijwasan, New Delhi. There was another application made by the appellants before the Consolidation Officer stating that they yvere the owner of agricultural land, in village Bamnoli and requesting for allotment of residential plot. On those applications inquiry was held and it was found that they do . ,not.reside in the said village. These are the findings of fact arrived at by the Revenue authorities on the basis^ of which the finding is arrived that the appellants are not the bona fide residents of village Bamnoli and at least not residing there for the .last 20 years. No ground is made out for interference with such findings of fact iii exercise of powers under Article 226. The appellants had the liberty to file the .rdpcuments in support of that claim beforq the authorities below and ,,they failed to do so. In these circumstafiices, when this Court is not to go into the questicm of fact, we reject the'application under order XLI ,,Rule 27 CPC. Even otherwise, the documents filed by the appellants appear to be of recent years and of no relevance as to residence prior tomonsolidation. ■LPA 659/2009 & 660/2009 I I 1, * 1 \in 'tS I 'M'} -'Vy 'T^'t yirfr' We. find no.error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. L;-;, ' ; • v_. inarch 6, 2012 j j (.• ' :>rV n k'l' k. LPA 659/2009 & 660/2009 prsk'- . ;; n ! • i ■If: f •r ■, ■ .■ ■■ r "i :r— JIODGE ,Page G of 6