2011 (3) TMI 1811 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the 1996 amendment to the Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959.
2. Validity of the Appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5.
3. Examination of the Financial Commissioner's findings.
4. Impact of the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 on the Appellant's petition.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the 1996 amendment to the Rule 6(j)(i):
The Appellant argued that the 1996 amendment to Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 was not applicable as the consolidation proceedings related to the year 1974-75. Despite this error in the impugned order dated 9th November, 2010, the court was not inclined to issue notice in the appeal.

2. Validity of the Appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5:
The Appellant claimed ownership of land in Khasra No. 122/5 based on a sale deed dated 14th March, 1982. However, the Financial Commissioner's findings indicated that Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out of pre-consolidation Khasra Nos. 1055 and 1093, which were in the name of Tara Wanti and Ho Ram, not Gordhan. The land was subsequently allotted to the Respondents through resolution No. 61 dated 4th August, 1976. The Financial Commissioner found that the records relied upon by the Appellant were tampered with, and there was no evidence of Gordhan or his successors being allotted Khasra No. 122/5.

3. Examination of the Financial Commissioner's findings:
The Financial Commissioner thoroughly examined the original records and concluded that Khasra No. 122/5 was never allotted to Gordhan or his successors. The findings revealed that the Appellant's claim was based on tampered records. The court found no reason to disturb these factual findings, as they were based on material evidence and were not perverse.

4. Impact of the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 on the Appellant's petition:
The Appellant's position was weaker as he had accepted the Financial Commissioner's order dated 23rd April, 2002, which dismissed his petition. The judgment dated 3rd September, 2004, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, pertained to the petition filed by Ms. Dharam Devi and not the Appellant's petition. The Appellant failed to show how the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004, revived his petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.