W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 1 6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8799/2007 Date of decision: 5th February, 2010 RAJENDER RANA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Bhupinder Singh Saini, Advocate. versus N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Advocate for Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate for LRs of respondent No. 3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, C.O. (N/W). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. Late Vijay Singh, Om Prakash and Baldev Singh, all three were sons of Mr. Bhoop Singh. Petitioner No.1 Mr. Rajender Rana, Petitioner No.2 Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Petitioner No.3 Mr. Jai Singh Rana and Petitioner No.4 Mr. Karan Singh Rana are sons of late Mr. Vijay Singh and grandsons of late Mr. Bhoop Singh. Petitioner No.5, Mr. Satpal Singh is son of late Mr. Om Prakash and grandson of late Mr. Bhoop Singh. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing their revision petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). The contesting respondent Mr. Baldev Singh, now represented by his legal heirs, was son W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 2 of late Mr. Bhoop Singh. 2. Late Vijay Singh, Omprakash and Baldev Singh were joint owners/bhumidars of land measuring 31 bigha and 18 biswa in village Khera Kalan in the pre-consolidation. 3. Pursuant to the consolidation proceedings and the scheme of consolidation, re-partition proceedings were completed in the said village between 7th December, 1999 to 10th December, 1999. In the consolidation scheme there was a provision that joint holding can be partitioned amongst the co-sharers when all co-sharers file their no objection certificates but in the event of any of the co-sharer objecting to partition, partition was not to be granted. 4. Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Satpal Singh jointly moved an application dated 3rd May, 1999 seeking separation/partition. The respondent No. 2, Mr. Baldev Singh, however, by his letter dated 22nd February, 2000 objected to separation/partition and in view thereof vide order dated 6th December, 2001 the Consolidation Officer recorded that no mutual settlement was arrived at between the parties and allotments should be made in accordance with the scheme of consolidation and there was no reason to interfere with the allotments made under Section 21(1) of the Act. 5. Subsequently, while implementation of the repartition proceedings was still pending, an application dated 7th March, 2005 was moved by Mr. Baldev Singh alleging deficiency of land allotted to them. On this application notice was issued to the concerned parties vide order dated 9th March, 2005 for 16th March, 2005. 6. It appears that on 14th March, 2005, Mr. Baldev Singh, who had earlier objected to separation/partition of the joint holding moved an application making a request for partition between the three joint holders. This application was listed on 16th March, 2005 before the Consolidation W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 3 Officer. On 16th March, 2005, the following order was passed by the Consolidation Officer:- “16-3-2005 Present Sh. Vijay Singh and Sh. Baldev Singh and Sat Pal s/o Om Parkash. Both parties were requested that their value be settled. Copy of fard clearly shows that discrepancy will be taken up later. Now HP is directed to allot land to the parties and put up proposal before 28/3/2005 Case will come on 30/3/05. Sd/- 16/3/05” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Satpal had not agreed to partition of the holdings and they were not aware of the application filed by Mr. Baldev Singh agreeing to partition when order dated 16th March, 2005 was passed by the Consolidation Officer. Similar plea was also raised by them in the revision petition filed under Section 42 of the Act. It was stated that Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Satpal had appeared before the Consolidation Officer as application on the question of deficiency of allotment was pending consideration. The Financial Commissioner has rejected the said contention of the petitioners recording as under:”- “8. The impugned order/resolutions have been challenged on grounds that the CO had become functus officio and had neither the power nor any occasion to pass the impugned orders. The petitioners have submitted that the provisions of the Act require the consent of joint khatedars/land owners before the CO can order partition of the joint holdings. The documents on record show that during the repartition proceedings, certain allotments had been made. Respondent No. 2 did file an application dt. 3.5.99, for separation of khewat W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 4 as well as for allotment of residential and industrial plot. Petitioner no. 1 had also filed an application before the CO dt. 3.5.99 requesting in a similar manner for separation of the khewat. The record shows that notices were issued by the CO fixing hearing in the matter on 16.3.05, when the petitioners and respondent no. 2 were present. The order sheet also indicates that all the parties made submission before the CO, that the value of their lands should be settled. The ordersheet also shows that at the next hearing on 30.3.05, both the petitioners and respondent no. 2 were present and had not raised any objections. If the proceedings were in relation to the fulfillment of deficiency in the allotments only, then there was no reason for the joint khatedars to have submitted that the value of their land should be settled because such a submission indicate that the individual khatedars wanted the value of their respective shares to be settled. Similarly, at the hearing before the CO on 30.3.05, all the parties were present but no one objected. The ordersheet of the court needs to be read alongwith the application that was filed by the parties and appreciated against the comments of the CO. The CO has indicated that the khata of the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 was separated vide resolution no. 105 dt. 8.4.05, which was consequent upon the direction of ex- CO dt. 30.3.05 to the Halka Patwari, in the matter that was ending before it. The CO has stated that petitioners were well aware of the facts and the ordersheet also establishes that the petitioners were present. The CO has also submitted that after the separation of the khewat, the shareholders were in possession of their respective land, in accordance with their share. The CO has also maintained that the separation of the khewat was done with the consent of all the khatedars. From the record it W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 5 is clear that through the impugned resolution, the pending objections had been disposed of and the khewat had been separated in accordance with the pending requests of the petitioners and respondent no. 2. I do not accept the contention of the petitioners that the separation could not be done because respondent no. 2 had objected, because the record shows that at one stage respondent no. 2 had objected to the partition, but had later withdrawn his objection. The ordersheet of CO is also clear that the petitioners were fully aware of what was happening in the proceeding and had not objected to the same, when orders were passed and given finality through the impugned resolutions. The petitioners have thus not been able to make out the case for interference with the impugned resolution no. 105 of the CO dt. 8.4.05 and 15.4.05 or for interfering with resolution no. 111 dt. 6.5.05.” 8. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16th March, 2005 has been quoted above. The Consolidation Officer had taken care to obtain signatures of the three joint holders on the order sheet. The first sentence in the order sheet dated 16th March, 2005 states that the joint holders were present and have requested that their value be settled. The second sentence states that the question of deficiency would be taken later. The question of deficiency was a matter between the allottees, i.e., three joint holders and the Consolidation Officer/the village and was not a inter se dispute between the three joint holders. These two sentences in the order sheet dated 16th March, 2005 clearly reflect that what was agreed and settled before the Consolidation Officer was separation/partition of the holdings between the three holders. The Consolidation Officer was, therefore, careful to obtain signatures of the three joint holders on the said order sheet. W.P. (C) No. 8799/2007 Page 6 9. Thereafter, the case was taken up for hearing on the next date fixed, i.e., 30th March, 2005. Order sheet dated 30th March, 2005 reads as under:- “30-3-05 Present Sh. Vijay Singh, Baldev Singh & Satpal. As no one has any objection HP is directed to put up proposal immediately. Sd/- 30/3/05” 10. Subsequently, the proceedings for deficiency were taken up and a proposal was put forward on 5th April, 2005 and an order dated 8th April, 2005 was passed. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2010 VKR