i.23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : December 17, 2009
+ LPA 346/2004
RAJ KUMAR .... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ramesh Chandra, Senior
Advocate with Ms.Geeta Mehrotra
and Mrs.R.Ratnam Nagar,
Advocates.
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Land admeasuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa situated in
Khasra No.15/1 in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi was under the bhumidari of one Jabar Singh.
He sold the said land to Vinod Chopra on 25.6.1988 whose
general attorney, in turn, sold the land to the appellant on
LPA No.346/2004 Page 1 of 7
5.3.1992 by and under a registered sale deed.
2. Having purchased the land, the appellant applied to
the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Tehsildar for the land to be
mutated in his name in the revenue records. Vide mutation
order dated 16.7.1993 the land was mutated in the name of
the appellant. But, prior thereto, on 17.1.1992, with reference
to a show-cause notice issued in the name of the previous
recorded owner, a conditional order under Section 81 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 was passed by the Revenue
Assistant.
3. Holding that the land required to be used for an
agricultural purpose was being misused, it was directed, vide
order 17.1.1992, that if within 3 months land use was not
restored for the purpose prescribed as per law the same would
be liable to be vested in the gaon sabha.
4. Thereafter, on 28.9.1995 a vesting order was
passed holding that since the land use was not reverted to the
permissible land use, the land stood vested in the gaon sabha.
5. When sought to be executed in the year 2000, the
appellant filed an application on 7.7.2000 under Appendix VI
Rule 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules 1954 stating that the
vesting order dated 28.9.1995 was passed without any notice
to him and hence should be recalled.
6. The said application was dismissed by the Revenue
LPA No.346/2004 Page 2 of 7
Assistant on 21.8.2000 holding that since a conditional order
for ejectment had been passed on 17.1.1992 after serving the
then recorded owner and the appellant having purchased the
land subsequent to said date, it could not be claimed by the
appellant that no notice had been served.
7. The appellant filed a Revision Petition before the
Financial Commissioner challenging the order dated 21.8.2000
passed by the Revenue Assistant stating that the appellant
was laying a challenge to the vesting order dated 28.9.1995
which was passed without any show-cause notice being served
upon the appellant.
8. The Revisional Authority i.e. the Financial
Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated
30.10.2000 holding that before the conditional vesting order
was passed, the recorded bhumidar of the land was served. It
was further held that having got the land mutated in his favour
in the year 1993, it was not explained as to how after a gap of
5 years, the vesting order dated 28.9.1995 was challenged
when the application was filed before the Revenue Assistant
on 7.7.2000.
9. The appellant challenged the order passed by the
Financial Commissioner by and under WP(C) No.835/2001
which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding
as under:-
LPA No.346/2004 Page 3 of 7
“The only contention raised before the Revenue
Assistant was that the vesting order has come into
being in the year 1995 despite the transfer in the
name of the petitioner in pursuance to the sale deed
of 1992 recorded by the entry in the khatauni of
20.09.1993. The Revenue Assistant, however, found
that the order had been passed on 17.01.1992 prior to
the entry in favour of the petitioner and the order of
vesting was a consequence of the earlier order dated
17.01.1992. Since the recorded owner Jabbar Singh
was served, the occasion to serve the petitioner did
not arise.
This is the same reasoning which has weighed with
the Financial Commissioner when the petitioner filed
the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner today sought to
contend that prior to the transfer being recorded in
favour of the petitioner in 1993, there was an
intervening sale in favour of Shri Vinod Chopra which
was recorded prior to the order of 17.01.1992.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically
asked to show as to where such a plea was raised
before the Revenue Assistant or before the Financial
Commissioner. There is no answer to this query. A
reading of both the orders show that there is no such
plea raised. In para (3) of the order of the Financial
Commissioner what is recorded is that the petitioner
purchased the land from Shri Vinod Chopra who had in
turn purchased the land from Jabar Singh. Shri Jabar
Singh was the lone recorded bhoomidar to whom
admittedly notice has been given by the Revenue
Assistant before passing the conditional order on
17.01.1992.
In my considered view, in order to raise the plea about
non-service of notice on Shri Vinod Chopra, this matter
should have been agitated before the forums below
showing the mutation in the name of Shri Vinod
Chopra and the non service on Shri Vinod Chopra
coupled with the affidavit of Shri Vinod Chopra for non-
receipt of the said notice. The petitioner cannot now
be permitted to raise this fresh plea which has not
been raised before the Revenue Assistant or before
the Financial Commissioner.”
LPA No.346/2004 Page 4 of 7
10. We have perused the application filed by the
appellant before the Revenue Assistant on 7.7.2000
challenging the order dated 28.9.1995 as also the Revision
Petition filed before the Revenue Assistant.
11. We find that the appellant has categorically raised a
plea that pursuant to the sale deed dated 5.3.1992 land was
mutated in his name vide mutation order dated 16.7.1993.
The appellant questioned the vesting order dated 28.9.1995
urging that before the same could be passed he was required
to be served with a show-cause notice.
12. We further note that with respect to the conditional
vesting order dated 17.1.1992 the appellant urged that having
sanctioned mutation in his name on 16.7.1993 the revenue
authorities could not predicate any right under the conditional
vesting order dated 17.1.1992.
13. As regards the delay, the appellant has specifically
pleaded that he learnt about the order dated 28.9.1995 only
when the same was attempted to be executed.
14. We note that the revenue authorities have not
bothered to consider whether the order dated 28.9.1995 was
served upon the appellant, who by virtue of the mutation
dated 16.7.1993 was shown as the recorded bhumidar of the
land. Thus, the claim of the appellant with respect to the bar
of delay required to be considered with reference to the
LPA No.346/2004 Page 5 of 7
vesting order being served and if not served, to consider
whether knowledge was gained by the appellant when the
vesting order was sought to be executed.
15. Further, it had to be considered whether the vesting
order dated 28.9.1995 was legal and valid for the reason the
appellant was never served with a prior notice before the order
was passed; he having been shown as the recorded bhumidar
of the land when mutation was effected in his favour on
16.7.1993.
16. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
order dated 8.1.2004. WP(C) No.835/2001 filed by the
appellant stands allowed. Order dated 30.10.2000 passed by
the Financial Commissioner dismissing Case No.273/2000-CA
is set aside. The Revision Petition i.e. Case No.273/2000-CA is
restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
17. We direct the Financial Commissioner to re-decide
the Revision Petition and while so doing to take note of the
facts noted herein above by us.
18. Needless to state, on revival of the proceedings, the
Financial Commissioner shall serve the respondents.
19. The appellant is directed to appear before the
learned Financial Commissioner on 22.2.2010 and is further
directed that on or before 1.2.2010 under cover of an
application, certified copy of the present order would be filed
LPA No.346/2004 Page 6 of 7
in the office of the learned Financial Commissioner so that the
Reader of the learned Financial Commissioner can trace out
the file of Case No.273/2000-CA and list the same before the
learned Financial Commissioner on 22.2.2010.
20. No costs.
21. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned
counsel for the appellant.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 17, 2009
Dharmender
LPA No.346/2004 Page 7 of 7