{"id":64926,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-31T04:26:46","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T22:56:46","slug":"shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Manmohan<\/div>\n
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+      LPA No. 1734\/2006 & CM No. 10649\/2006\n\n                          Reserved on       : August 27th, 2008\n                        Date of Decision : September 30th, 2008\n\nSHRI LEO PURI                          ..... Appellant\n                   Through: Mr. N.S.Vashisht, Advocate.\n\n             Versus\n\nCONSOLIDATION OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents\n                  Through: Mr. Amitabh Marwah,\n                  Advocate for the Respondent No.1.\n                  Mr. B.S. Maan, Advocate for\n                  Respondent\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n   judgment?                                                       No\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                              Yes.\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?              Yes.\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
%<\/p>\n
MANMOHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated<\/p>\n
31st July, 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed<\/p>\n
the Appellant\u201fs writ petition bearing No. 2844 of 2005<\/p>\n
and set aside the order dated 5th February, 2005 passed<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                        Page 1 of 23<\/span>
\n by the Consolidation Officer and further directed the<\/p>\n
matter to be remitted for re-consideration before the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer who would hear the parties afresh<\/p>\n
and thereafter render specific findings on the issues<\/p>\n
indicated in paras 16 and 17 of the order dated 8th<\/p>\n
September, 2004 in earlier writ petition (Civil) bearing<\/p>\n
No. 267 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    The relevant paras 16 and 17 of the Order dated 8th<\/p>\n
September, 2004 passed by another learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge in earlier W.P. (C ) No. 267\/2003 read as under:-<\/p>\n
            “16. At the stage when it was brought
\n            to the notice of the Settlement Officer
\n            and thereafter to the Financial
\n            Commissioner that petitioner through
\n            her predecessors in interest came into
\n            settled possession of 8 bigha and 5
\n            biswas of land comprised in Khasra
\n            No. 171 (New) in my opinion since
\n            application of Raghuvir Singh was
\n            being entertained after over 20 years
\n            and fresh adjudication was being
\n            effected pertaining to his claim that at
\n            the repartition he was allotted less
\n            land, revenue authorities should have
\n            looked into the revenue record as to
\n            how in lieu of pre-consolidation
\n            holding of 7 bigha and 15 biswas, post
\n            consolidation allotment was of 8 bigha
\n            and 5 biswas. Was it a case where
\n            value of land was resulting in the<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                   Page 2 of 23<\/span>
\n             increased area or was it a case of
\n            excess allotment? Further, effect of
\n            the original bhumidar selling the land
\n            to a person who could claim to be a
\n            bonafide purchaser for value also
\n            required to be considered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17. To do complete justice between
\n            the parties, in the facts and
\n            circumstances of the case noted
\n            above, it would be advisable to
\n            remand      the    matter      to   the
\n            Consolidation Officer to pass fresh
\n            orders after hearing the petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.    The brief facts of the case are as follows:-<\/p>\n
            (a)      Shri K. Puri the late father of the<\/p>\n
                   Appellant purchased an agricultural farm<\/p>\n
                   house bearing old Khasra No. 2697\/661\/2,<\/p>\n
                   2697\/661\/1 and 2699\/662 measuring 7<\/p>\n
                   bighas 15 biswas and after repartition<\/p>\n
                   under the Consolidation proceedings the<\/p>\n
                   new khasra number being 171 measuring<\/p>\n
                   8 bighas 5 biswas in the revenue estate of<\/p>\n
                   village Bijwasan in the National Capital<\/p>\n
                   Territory of Delhi vide sale deed dated<\/p>\n
                   06.04.1979 from the recorded owner one<\/p>\n
                   Smt. Raksha Tandon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)      The aforesaid land was purchased by<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                     Page 3 of 23<\/span>
\n                    Shri K. Puri after the seller (Smt. Raksha<\/p>\n
                   Tandon) had duly obtained the necessary<\/p>\n
                   sale   permission     from     the    competent<\/p>\n
                   authority under Section 30 of the East<\/p>\n
                   Punjab     Holdings      (Consolidation        and<\/p>\n
                   Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as<\/p>\n
                   made     applicable   to     Delhi   (hereinafter<\/p>\n
                   referred to as the \u201eAct\u201f).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) The land was duly mutated in the name of<\/p>\n
                   Shri K. Puri in the revenue records by the<\/p>\n
                   Consolidation Officer. Shri K. Puri died on<\/p>\n
                   30.10.1992.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d)      A notice in the name of Mr. K. Puri (since<\/p>\n
                   deceased) was issued for demarcation on<\/p>\n
                   10.01.2002     from      the    office   of     the<\/p>\n
                   Consolidation Officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (e)      On one of her visits the Appellant\u201fs<\/p>\n
                   attorney received the said notice and after<\/p>\n
                   receiving the said notice the Appellant<\/p>\n
                   visited the Tehsil and the Consolidation<\/p>\n
                   Office at Kapashera Court and it transpired<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                            Page 4 of 23<\/span>
\n                    from the records that some adverse orders<\/p>\n
                   had already been passed against Shri K.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Puri, the deceased father of the Appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (f) On making enquiries at the office of the<\/p>\n
                   Consolidation Officer, the Appellant was<\/p>\n
                   told that one Shri Raghubir Singh Sharma<\/p>\n
                   (late father of Respondent Nos. 4-7 had<\/p>\n
                   filed an Appeal bearing No. 43\/2000 in the<\/p>\n
                   Court of Shri H.P.S. Saran Collector (South-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   West) Delhi against an order passed by the<\/p>\n
                   Settlement Officer (C ) on 09.12.1980<\/p>\n
                   wherein the Collector (South-West) vide<\/p>\n
                   ordered dated 8th May, 2001 had set aside<\/p>\n
                   the order dated 09.12.1980 passed by the<\/p>\n
                   SO(C) and remanded the case back to<\/p>\n
                   Consolidation Officer (Bijwasan) in respect<\/p>\n
                   of land bearing Khasra No. 22\/16\/2(1-4)<\/p>\n
                   with   the   direction   that   Petitioner    be<\/p>\n
                   allotted land after due process as suit land<\/p>\n
                   has been allotted to third person during<\/p>\n
                   consolidation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                         Page 5 of 23<\/span><\/p>\n
             (g)      In     pursuance   of   the     order      dated<\/p>\n
                   08.05.2001      passed    by    the   Additional<\/p>\n
                   Collector in appeal No. 43\/2000, Shri Vinay<\/p>\n
                   Kaushik,    Consolidation      Officer    (Village<\/p>\n
                   Bijwasan), Distt. South-West, Kapasehara,<\/p>\n
                   Delhi passed an order dated 17.09.2001<\/p>\n
                   whereby the Consolidation Officer held<\/p>\n
                   that the Appellant\u201fs father late Shri K. Puri<\/p>\n
                   held excess land to the extent of 14 biswas<\/p>\n
                   which deserved to be withdrawn for the<\/p>\n
                   purposes of allotment to Respondent Nos.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   4-7.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (h)      The Appellant\u201fs mother upon gaining<\/p>\n
                   knowledge of the above facts immediately<\/p>\n
                   moved      an    application      before         the<\/p>\n
                   Settlement Officer (C)\/SDM, Vasant Vihar,<\/p>\n
                   New Delhi praying for declaration, nullity of<\/p>\n
                   the proceedings initiated against Shri K.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Puri and also prayed that no further action,<\/p>\n
                   including demarcation of the land, be<\/p>\n
                   taken.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                             Page 6 of 23<\/span><\/p>\n
             (i) Thereafter aggrieved by the order dated<\/p>\n
                   17.09.2001 passed by the Consolidation<\/p>\n
                   Officer, Bijwasan, Distt. South-West, New<\/p>\n
                   Delhi, the Appellant\u201fs mother filed an<\/p>\n
                   appeal under section 21 sub section (3) of<\/p>\n
                   the Act in the Court of the Settlement<\/p>\n
                   Officer\/SDM , Vasant Vihar, New Delhi<\/p>\n
                   praying therein for setting aside the order<\/p>\n
                   dated 17.09.2001 and for restoration of the<\/p>\n
                   land admeasuring 14 biswas which was<\/p>\n
                   alleged to be in excess to its original form<\/p>\n
                   to the khata of the Appellant\u201fs late father.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (j) The SDM held that there was no illegality in<\/p>\n
                   the order dated 17.09.2001 passed by the<\/p>\n
                   Consolidation Officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (k)Aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2002<\/p>\n
                   passed by the Settlement Officer, the<\/p>\n
                   Appellant preferred an appeal being case<\/p>\n
                   No. 143\/2002-CA before the Court of the<\/p>\n
                   Financial   Commissioner,    Delhi.         The<\/p>\n
                   Financial   Commissioner     dismissed       the<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                         Page 7 of 23<\/span>
\n                    appeal of the Petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (l) Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.12.2002,<\/p>\n
                   03.07.2002, 17.09.2001 and 08.05.2001<\/p>\n
                   respectively   passed     by    the     Financial<\/p>\n
                   Commissioner,     Settlement         Officer\/SDM,<\/p>\n
                   Vasant Vihar and the Consolidation Officer<\/p>\n
                   village   Bijwasan      and    the     Additional<\/p>\n
                   Collector, (South-West), the Appellant filed<\/p>\n
                   W.P. (C ) 267 of 2003 before this Hon\u201fble<\/p>\n
                   Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (m)      The said writ petition was disposed of<\/p>\n
                   vide order dated 08.09.2004 with the<\/p>\n
                   following directions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     “…..18. Writ Petition is accordingly
\n                     disposed of quashing the order
\n                     dated 17.09.2001 passed by the
\n                     Consolidation Officer, order dated
\n                     03.07.2002     passed     by     the
\n                     Settlement Officer and order dated
\n                     27.12.2002 passed by the Financial
\n                     Commissioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     19. The Consolidation Officer shall
\n                     proceed to issue notice for a date of
\n                     hearing to the petitioner as well as
\n                     to respondents 4 to 7 . Petitioner
\n                     would be heard.        Consolidation
\n                     record would be considered. Fresh
\n                     decision would be taken in light of<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                            Page 8 of 23<\/span>
\n                      the observations made above….. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (n)      The Consolidation Officer vide order<\/p>\n
                   dated 05.02.2005 was pleased to hold that<\/p>\n
                   excess allotment of 14 biswas including 4<\/p>\n
                   biswas \u201eMuzarai\u201f in the Khata of the<\/p>\n
                   Appellant deserves withdrawal from Khasra<\/p>\n
                   171 from the khata of Shri Leo Puri<\/p>\n
                   reducing the area from 8 bighas 5 biswas<\/p>\n
                   to 7 bighas 11 biswas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (o)      The said order dated 05.02.2005 was<\/p>\n
                   challenged by the appellant by way of Writ<\/p>\n
                   Petition (C) No. 2844\/2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (p)       A    Learned Single Judge vide his<\/p>\n
                   judgment dated 31st July 2006     in WP (C)<\/p>\n
                   No. 2844\/2005, held as follows:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     “7. I am of the opinion that the
\n                     Consolidation    Officer      while
\n                     seemingly complying with the
\n                     directions of the Court in the
\n                     previous writ proceedings had
\n                     strayed away from one of the main
\n                     issues.   The order of this Court
\n                     indicated that the Consolidation
\n                     Officer had to record reasons, or
\n                     the rationale for allotment of
\n                     excess lands namely 8 bighas 5
\n                     biswas. The Court in fact indicated<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                      Page 9 of 23<\/span>
\n                      possible reasons which could have
\n                     resulted in such allotment i.e.
\n                     either excess allotment on account
\n                     of increased area or the effect of
\n                     the original bhumidar selling the
\n                     land to the person claiming to be a
\n                     bonafide owner. All these aspects,
\n                     however, have gone unnoticed.
\n                     The Impugned Order is, therefore,
\n                     set aside. The matter is remitted
\n                     for       re-consideration        of
\n                     Consolidation Officer who shall
\n                     hear the parties and render specific
\n                     findings on the issues indicated in
\n                     Paras 16 and 17 in the order of this
\n                     Court dated 8th September, 2004 in
\n                     W.P. (C ) No. 267\/2003.         The
\n                     Consolidation Officer is directed to
\n                     complete the process and issue a
\n                     reasoned order within 8 weeks
\n                     from today.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (q)      The present appeal was filed on 7th<\/p>\n
                   August, 2006 challenging the validity<\/p>\n
                   and legality of the order dated 31st July,<\/p>\n
                   2006 passed by the learned Single<\/p>\n
                   Judge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.         In the meantime, the Consolidation Officer in<\/p>\n
compliance with the impugned order heard the matter at<\/p>\n
length and on 25th September, 2006 gave reasons for<\/p>\n
withdrawal of excess land. The Consolidation Officer, by<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                      Page 10 of 23<\/span>
\n this order held that the withdrawal of the excess<\/p>\n
allotment from the Khata of the Sh. K. Puri or his<\/p>\n
successors-in-interest was fully warranted.<\/p>\n
5.    The learned counsel for the appellant Mr N.S.<\/p>\n
Vashisht submitted that the Consolidation Officer who is<\/p>\n
an authority under the Act had become Functus officio<\/p>\n
as after the completion of the consolidation proceedings<\/p>\n
resulting in repartition and entering into possession of<\/p>\n
the holding by the predecessor of the Appellant,<\/p>\n
repartition cannot be disturbed by the Consolidation<\/p>\n
Officer suo motu and it is in this respect that the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer is rendered Functus Officio after<\/p>\n
the repartition is done by him as any withdrawal would<\/p>\n
be altering the repartition which cannot be done when<\/p>\n
no objection under section 21(2) of the Act is preferred<\/p>\n
and\/or filed by any of the aggrieved person. In this<\/p>\n
connection he relied upon a judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of this Court in “Ram Nath Vs. Finance<\/p>\n
Commissioner Delhi”, reported in 25 (1984) DLT 20,<\/p>\n
wherein it was held that in view of Sections 21 and 24 of<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                Page 11 of 23<\/span>
\n the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention<\/p>\n
of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the Consolidation Officer<\/p>\n
had no power or right after five years to take away<\/p>\n
excess land given to an individual in re-partition and<\/p>\n
allocate it to a third party. The learned Single Judge held<\/p>\n
that possession of an individual could not be disturbed<\/p>\n
and more so, in view of an earlier order of the Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner. Mr. Vashisht also relied upon a judgment<\/p>\n
of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the case of “Roop<\/p>\n
Chand vs. State of Punjab & Another<\/a>” reported in<\/p>\n
AIR 1963 SC 1503, wherein it was held that:-<\/p>\n
            “where the State Government has, under
\n            section   41   (1)   of   the   East   Punjab
\n            Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention
\n            of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, delegated
\n            its power given under section 21 (4) to
\n            hear appeals to an officer, an order
\n            passed by such officer is an order passed
\n            by the State Government itself and not
\n            an “order passed by any officer under
\n            this Act” within the meaning of section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            42. The order contemplated by section
\n            42 is an order passed by an officer in his
\n            own right and not as a delegate.         The<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                     Page 12 of 23<\/span>
\n             State    Government,    therefore,   is   not
\n            entitled under section 42 to call for and
\n            examine the record of the case disposed
\n            of by the officer acting as delegate. An
\n            order passed by the State Government
\n            under section 42 in such a case is nullity
\n            and deserves to be set aside under Art.
\n            32 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.    The counsel for the appellant contended that even<\/p>\n
if it is held that remand order dated 08.05.2001 was<\/p>\n
under the Provision of the Act, then the same would be<\/p>\n
struck by the vice of non-application of mind as the<\/p>\n
Settlement Officer did not consider and apply his mind<\/p>\n
as to change, alter or revoke the scheme as the said<\/p>\n
issue was not before the Settlement Officer in Appeal<\/p>\n
No. 43\/2000.        The remand order of 20.08.2007 also<\/p>\n
cannot held to be one under section 21(3) of the Act as<\/p>\n
the Settlement Officer was not hearing any appeal<\/p>\n
against any order of Consolidation Officer under Section<\/p>\n
21(2) of the Act.      The Financial Commissioner failed to<\/p>\n
appreciate that the order dated 17.09.2001 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer disturbing the possession of the<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                      Page 13 of 23<\/span>
\n appellant was ultra vires the Act as none of the condition<\/p>\n
as prescribed under the section 21 and\/or 36 and or 42<\/p>\n
of the Act was present. More over there was no legal<\/p>\n
ground to disturb the possession of the Appellant after<\/p>\n
30 long years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 Mr.<\/p>\n
Amitabh Marwah contended as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            (a) Ms. Raksha Tandon was the recorded
\n            owner of the pre-consolidation Khasra Nos.
\n            2697\/661\/2\/(3-17),    2697\/661\/1(3-01)     and
\n            2699\/662 (0-17) totaling to 7 Bihas 15 Biswas
\n            of land in Village Bijwasan. Pursuant to the
\n            Consolidation    of   Land    Scheme     dated
\n            22.05.1975 of village Bijwasan, Hadbast No.
\n            218,    Tehsil    Mehrauli   District,   Delhi,
\n            consolidation process started in village
\n            Bijwasan in the year 1974-75 . The aforesaid
\n            Consolidation Scheme is still in force and has
\n            not yet been closed. A salient feature of the
\n            aforesaid Consolidation Scheme (page 200 of
\n            the paper book is that wherever excess land
\n            of the Gram Sabha or the Bhumidar is found,
\n            the same can be withdrawn by the
\n            Consolidation Officer) . Between 18.06.1975
\n            to 11.07.1975, vide Resolution No. 18, Ms.
\n            Raksha Tandon was allotted the whole of
\n            Khasra No. 171, admeasuring 8 Bighas and 5
\n            Biswas in Hakdar No. 349 against a demand
\n            of 7 Bighas and 15 Biswas.        As such, an
\n            excess allotment of 10 Biswas was made.
\n            Upon remand, as an excess allotment was
\n            made to Ms. Raksha Tandon in 1975, the
\n            Consolidation Officer, after enquiry, vide<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                 Page 14 of 23<\/span>
\n             order dated 17.09.2001 withdrew 14 Biswas
\n            from the allotment made to Ms. Raksha
\n            Tandon, which land had been purchased by
\n            the late Mr. K. Puri.      10 Biswas were
\n            withdrawn on account of excess allotment
\n            and 4 Biswas on account of Muzarai.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) The question of the Consolidation
\n            Officer becoming Functus Officio cannot and
\n            does not arise in the facts and circumstances
\n            of the present case as the Consolidation
\n            Officer was acting in compliance of the
\n            directions passed by this Hon\u201fble Court vide
\n            order dated 31.07.2006 in exercise of its
\n            powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\n            The Appellate Authority has the power to call
\n            for the proceedings of consolidation for
\n            satisfying itself regarding the legality or
\n            propriety of any order made or any repartition
\n            done and pass such order as it may deem fit
\n            upon it coming to the conclusion that there
\n            has been some illegality. Upon remand by
\n            this Hon\u201fble Court, the Consolidation Officer
\n            has passed the order dated 25.09.2006 under
\n            Section 21 (2) of the Act after giving full
\n            opportunity to the Appellant to present its
\n            case.     There is no allegation that full
\n            opportunity     was   not    given   by    the
\n            Consolidation Officer to the Appellant. The
\n            Appellant voluntarily participated in the
\n            proceedings before the Consolidation Officer.
\n            As such, the question of the Consolidation
\n            Officer becoming functus officio cannot and
\n            does not arise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) This Hon\u201fble Court in the matter of
\n            Sahib Singh Versus Lt. Governor of Delhi &
\n            Ors., reported in 137 (2007) DLT 111 (DB),
\n            has held that the contention that after
\n            publishing of the Scheme, the Consolidation
\n            Officer becomes functus officio is without any
\n            basis in view of the specific provisions of<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                 Page 15 of 23<\/span>
\n             Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. Even in
\n            the aforementioned case the Consolidation
\n            Scheme was still in force when repartition
\n            was effected after a previous repartition had
\n            been effected. This is evident from the fact
\n            that order is passed by the adjudicating
\n            authority as Consolidation Officer, thereby
\n            showing that the village was still under
\n            consolidation and the scheme had not been
\n            consigned. Mr. K. Puri and subsequently, the
\n            Appellant are not the original Bhumidars at
\n            the time when the excess allotment was
\n            made. The excess allotment was made to Ms.
\n            Raksha Tandon and not to the Appellant or
\n            his late father who was merely a purchaser of
\n            the land. Since, title in the land has changed
\n            from the original Bhumidar Ms. Raksha
\n            Tandon to the late Mr. K. Puri by way of sale
\n            and to the Appellant, by way of succession
\n            and the fact that the excess land has been
\n            placed in the Gram Sabha Pool and the fact
\n            that the consolidation process had still not
\n            attained finality, the Consolidation Officer was
\n            well within his rights to withdraw the excess
\n            land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 8.   The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 5<\/p>\n
Mr. B.S. Maan and Mr. Jai Prakash contended as under:-<\/p>\n
            (a) The simple and pure controversy
\n               involved in the present matter is as to
\n               whether the consolidation authority has
\n               power and jurisdiction during the pendency
\n               of the consolidation proceedings to
\n               withdraw the excess area from the right
\n               holder to whom the excess allotment was
\n               made over and above his\/her actual
\n               entitlement due to some clerical error and
\n               whether the authorities can correct\/rectify
\n               the said error by withdrawing the excess<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                  Page 16 of 23<\/span>
\n                    allotment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) In the present case, the re-partition U\/s.
\n               21(1) of the Consolidation Act has been
\n               made by the consolidation authority in
\n               accordance     with  the    scheme       of
\n               consolidation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) As per the scheme of the consolidation
\n                made and confirmed in respect of Village-
\n                Bijwasan, which is on record specific
\n                provisions have been made for withdrawal
\n                of the excess land from the right holders.
\n                It is further pertinent to point out that as
\n                per section 43-A of the said act the
\n                consolidation authority is fully competent
\n                to correct any clerical error of an order
\n                passed by any officer. The consolidation
\n                officer in his order dated 25.09.2006 has
\n                held that there no reasons apparent on the
\n                records to allot the excess land in the
\n                khata of the appellant.        Therefore, it
\n                appears to be a simple clerical error which
\n                could be corrected and has been rightly
\n                corrected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d) The contention raised by the appellant
\n               to the effect that the consolidation officer
\n               has become Functus officio is totally mis-
\n               conceived and devoid of any merit in as
\n               much as the consolidation proceedings are
\n               still going on and the present case is not a
\n               case of fresh re-partition, but it is a case of
\n               correction of the error\/withdrawal of the
\n               excess allotment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.    The main ground of challenge in the present<\/p>\n
appeal as contended by the counsel for the appellant is<\/p>\n
the fact that Consolidation Officer had become Functus<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                    Page 17 of 23<\/span>
\n officio after the repartition and entering into possession<\/p>\n
of the holding by the predecessor of the Appellant.<\/p>\n
According to the appellant the Consolidation Officer is<\/p>\n
rendered Functus officio as any withdrawal would<\/p>\n
amount to altering the re-partition which cannot be<\/p>\n
done.   However, in our view the above contention of the<\/p>\n
appellant needs to be examined in the factual context<\/p>\n
that Ms. Raksha Tandon was the recorded owner of the<\/p>\n
pre-consolidation Khasra admeasuring 7 Bigha and 15<\/p>\n
Biswas of land and the consolidation Scheme for village<\/p>\n
Bijwasan, Mehrauli District, Delhi clearly stipulated that<\/p>\n
wherever excess land of the Gram Sabha or the<\/p>\n
Bhumidar is found, the same can be withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer.     The relevant portion of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Scheme reads as under:-<\/p>\n
            “The walls of the farm-houses, which are
\n            existing at the spot and which have been
\n            made Qayami and wherein excess land of
\n            Gram Sabha or Bhumidar falls, the said
\n            excess of land shall be withdrawn from the
\n            side where the wall does not exist and if
\n            pucca walls exists on all the four sides, in that
\n            condition also, the land shall be withdrawn
\n            from one side, as deemed appropriate. In
\n            such a situation, the owner of the wall shall
\n            have to remove his wall and no one will\/shall
\n            have any objection thereto”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                   Page 18 of 23<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.    After     repartition     in        accordance    with         the<\/p>\n
aforementioned        Consolidation         Scheme,     Ms.     Raksha<\/p>\n
Tandon was allotted the whole of Khasra No.                          171<\/span><\/p>\n
admeasuring 8 Bighas and 5 Biswas against a demand of<\/p>\n
7 Bighas and 15 Biswas. Since an excess allotment of<\/p>\n
10 Biswas was made, the Consolidation Officer vide<\/p>\n
order dated 17th September 2001 withdrew 10 Biswas<\/p>\n
from the allotment made to Ms. Raksha Tandon, which<\/p>\n
land had been purchased by the late Mr. K. Puri.                       An<\/p>\n
excess of 4 Biswas was also withdrawn in lieu of Muzarai<\/p>\n
as was done in the case of every land owner in village<\/p>\n
Bijwasan, on the basis of a uniform formula of half a<\/p>\n
biswa for 1 bigha of land for building up of Gram Sabha<\/p>\n
land. In our view, the Consolidation Officer has acted in<\/p>\n
a     bonafide     manner      and    in    accordance    with        the<\/p>\n
provisions       of   the   Consolidation        Scheme.             The<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer after withdrawing the excess area<\/p>\n
of land available with the Appellant has allotted it to the<\/p>\n
Gram Sabha Pool. In the scheme of consolidation dated<\/p>\n
25th May, 1975 specific provisions have been made for<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                              Page 19 of 23<\/span>
\n the withdrawal of the excess land available with the right<\/p>\n
holders.    It is also to be noted that the Consolidation<\/p>\n
Officer in his order dated 25th September, 2006 has held<\/p>\n
that there are no reasons apparent on the records to<\/p>\n
allot   excess land      in the    Khata   of the   appellant.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in our view, it is not a case of fresh repartition<\/p>\n
but it is a case of correction of a mistake which resulted<\/p>\n
in excess allotment and thereby had to be rectified by<\/p>\n
withdrawal.        The statute under Section 43-A provides<\/p>\n
that the Consolidation Officer is fully competent to<\/p>\n
rectify a mistake in a Scheme at any time of an order<\/p>\n
passed by an Officer. Section 43-A of the Act reads as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
            \"43-A.     Correction     of    clerical\n            errors:-    Clerical or    arithmetical\n            mistakes in a Scheme made or an\n<\/pre>\n
            order passed by any office, under this
\n            act arising from any accidental slip or
\n            omission may at any time be
\n            corrected by the authority concerned
\n            either of its own motion or on the
\n            application of any of the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
                                  [emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
11.     Consequently, the withdrawal of 10 biswas on<\/p>\n
account of excess allotment was a clerical mistake, as<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                     Page 20 of 23<\/span>
\n against an allottee\u201fs demand of 7 bighas and 15 biswas,<\/p>\n
8 bighas and 5 biswas was allotted!                    Even, the<\/p>\n
withdrawal of 4 biswas was on account of a clerical or<\/p>\n
arithmatical mistake as it arose on account of failure to<\/p>\n
withdraw land in lieu of Muzarai, on the basis of a<\/p>\n
uniform formula.       Therefore, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
both       these      mistakes         were      capable         of<\/p>\n
correction\/rectification by the Consolidation Officer by<\/p>\n
virtue of the power conferred under Section 43A of the<\/p>\n
Statute.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    In light of the above observations, the contention<\/p>\n
raised     by   the   appellant   to   the    effect   that     the<\/p>\n
consolidation officer has become Functus officio is<\/p>\n
misconceived on facts and untenable in law. However,<\/p>\n
as the village is still under consolidation and the Scheme<\/p>\n
had not been consigned, the Consolidation Officer was<\/p>\n
not functus officio     and the power and jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
withdraw the excess area from the holder of the land to<\/p>\n
whom an excess allotment was made over and above his<\/p>\n
actual entitlement due to some mistake which is also in<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                        Page 21 of 23<\/span>
\n accordance         with   the    specific   provision        in   the<\/p>\n
Consolidation       Scheme      made   in   respect     of    village<\/p>\n
Bijwasan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.     The case of Roop Chand referred to by Mr.<\/p>\n
Vashisht is not applicable to the present facts as no<\/p>\n
issue of delegation of power has arisen in the present<\/p>\n
case.     Moreover, we find that in none of the two<\/p>\n
judgments cited by Mr. Vashisht, an issue of rectification<\/p>\n
of mistake or applicability of Section 43-A of the Act<\/p>\n
arose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     The learned Single Judge by way of the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment had directed the matter to be remitted to<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer to ascertain after hearing the<\/p>\n
appellant, as indicated in the order dated 08.09.2004 in<\/p>\n
paragraph 16 and 17, as to how in lieu of the pre-<\/p>\n
consolidation holding of 7 Bigha and 15 biswas, post<\/p>\n
consolidation allotment of 8 Bigha and 5 biswas was<\/p>\n
made. The Consolidation Officer was directed to render<\/p>\n
specific findings on the above mentioned issue. In our<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                                         Page 22 of 23<\/span>
\n view, there is no infirmity with the judgment passed by<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge. It is interesting to note that<\/p>\n
the subsequent order dated 25th September, 2006<\/p>\n
passed by the Consolidation Officer, in pursuance to the<\/p>\n
impugned order, has not been challenged by the<\/p>\n
Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but with no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                MANMOHAN, J<\/p>\n
                                MUKUL MUDGAL, J<\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2008<\/p>\n
LPA NO.1734\/2006                               Page 23 of 23<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 Author: Manmohan * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No. 1734\/2006 & CM No. 10649\/2006 Reserved on : August 27th, 2008 Date of Decision : September 30th, 2008 SHRI LEO PURI ….. Appellant Through: Mr. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64926","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":3917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008","name":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T22:56:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-leo-puri-vs-consolidation-officer-ors-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Leo Puri vs Consolidation Officer & Ors. on 30 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64926","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64926"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64926\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64926"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64926"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64926"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}