1.. e .. e "~ ~r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) NO. 255411997With CCP No. 37211997, CONT.CAS (C) No. 551/2004 CCP NO. 206/ & WP (C) No. 5242/2000, & WP (C) No.259211997 Reserved on: July 6, 2006 Date of Decision: l81h September, 2006 1. WP (C) No. 2554/1997 2. SHRINEKI ..... PETITIONER Through:. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate, with " Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate, Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. . ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate forR-1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, CCP No. 372/1997 SHRINEKI .. ... PETITIONER Through:. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate, wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 1 of 53 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:04.08.2023 16:46 Certify the the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ~ ~ ~- - 4 Versus SHRI G.C. SHARMA & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate forR-1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 .... RESPONDENTS Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, \o~ 3. CCP NO. 206/1997 4. SHRINEKI ... PETITIONER Through:. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate, :Versus: SHRI G. C. SHARMA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS .. Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate forR-1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, WP (C) No. 2592/1997 SHRI SUBODH GUPTA & ORS . . .. PETITIONERS wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 2 of 53 ""' e e e - Through:. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate, Versus y;cy DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, 5. WP (C) No. 5242/2000 DAYANAND&ANR. ... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Khatri. Advocate UNION OF INDIA & ORS. " wpc No. 2554/97 & connected Versus ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr, Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate, with Virender Kumar Sharma for R-8, 3 of 53 ;... e e e e 6. CCP NO. 551/2004 RAJ ROOF RANA & ANR. PETITIONERS Versus Through : Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate, With Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate. r:o k(. SHRI G.K. MARWAH & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, Mr. V .K. Tan don, Advocate for R -1 Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for R-8 Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Respondents -Govt. of NCT Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RA VINDRA BHA T 1. 2. 3. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment.? To be refe1Ted to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S. RA VINDRA BRAT, J. " wpc No. 2554/97 & connected Yes Yes Yes 4 of 53 ',._ \o ~\ 1. These rival writ proceedings claim contrary reliefs. However, both involve adjudication of common questions of fact and law. With consent of counsel for all parties, they were heard together; they are dealt with in this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in earlier writ petition ( Shri Neki -vs- DDA CWP 2554/1997, and Subodh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. CWP 2592/1997 hereafter referred to, collectively, as "Neki") impugn the e consolidation proceedings carried out by the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Consolidation Officer") in Village-Singhola. It alleged that the - Consolidation Officer acted malafide and created false records of the consolidation scheme, which was not confirmed. The consolidation proceedings, which had been pending since 1988, were sought to be concluded, finalized and confirmed in a span of 7 days. The proceedings had been stayed till 23/5/1997 in e WP (C) No.1956/1997. 3. The petitioners alleges that once consolidation proceedings e commenced, no agricultural land could be transferred or sold without the permission of the Consolidation Officer. They cite several instances, and alleges " wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 5 of 53 '>- . that permissions were granted, and resulting in benefit to one family to the exten~\) of 32 industrial plots and 34 residential plots. It is also alleged that the Committee constituted by the Consolidation Officer constituted of persons who were not landowners in the village. It is alleged that at no point of time was any draw conducted by the Consolidation Officer, when as per the Scheme such a draw had to be conducted. 4. The petitioners also alleges that the area in question was declared e as "development area" as per provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and thus, no development could be permitted in the village. Further, the lands, which e e t) had been acquired, continued to be part of the scheme. The acquisition was also on the basis of the old Khasra numbers which resulted in confusion in the mind of the lahd-owners. 5. The petitioners allege that the amended rules in particular Rule 6 U) (1&2) were contrary to each other and illegal and ultra-vires. They contends that the Zonal Plans had been prepared for the area and the land under the consolidation proceedings was cleared for the development of Narela Township. The Petitioners aver that continuation of the consolidation proceedings was fraud .r wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 6 of 53 upon the public and the power. In addition, the Petitioners urge that due publici!~\ ~ had not been given to the final scheme, and objections had not been sought from the interested parties. 6. During pendancy of the writ petition in Neki, certain interim orders were issued, and the Lt. Governor issued an order on 17.05.2000. That order has been impugned in the second writ petition, (Dayanand -vs- Union of India WP 5402/2000, hereafter referred to as "Dayanand'). The impugned order e agreed, therefore, with the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner that • e - the consolidation scheme be revised. The Lt. Governor directed, that while issuing a revised scheme, the following had to be taken into consideration: i? " (a) The revised norms concerning the maximum size of residential plots and prohibition on allotment of industrial plots. (b) The points mentioned in the inquiry report of the Deputy Commissioner. (c) It has to be ensured that tor the residential area allotted in the extended La/ Dora commensurate amount of agricultural/and is ceded. It has to be particularly ensured that in the entire process of consolidation the Gaon Sabha is not casualty." wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 7 of 53 7 . Dayan and impeaches the legality and justification of the impugned 1 ;/ ...,. order on the ground of arbitrariness, violation of imperative provisions of law, and action taken on the basis of non-application of mind. The petitioners in this set of proceedings justify the consolidation proceedings, and the action of the Consolidation officer, particularly in re-partitioning the properties; it is alleged that all suitable and proper steps, as per provisions of the East Punjab ( Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Holdings) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act") were taken. The scheme was prepared, and e finalized after hearing the views and objections of all concerned, and allocations were made in the consolidation proceedings, in accordance with the Act. It is e alleged that no one had voiced any objections or grievances at the time of finalization of the scheme, which was made known to all concerned parties. 8. The petitioners in Oayanand also allege that the petitioner in the Neki batch could not claim to be aggrieved; they had not objected to the scheme. e It re-partition was effected between 26-5-1997 and 3-6-1997. 212 right holders e were handed over physical possession, and those persons entered into possession. or wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 8 of 53 9. Dayanand alleges that the impugned order dated 17-5-2000 is 1~ .,_ based on inconclusive surmises, and vague assumptions. It could not be the basis of a decision to revise the consolidation scheme and virtually re-write the re-partition of properties, which had attained finality. In the absence of objections, the authorities did not possess jurisdiction to interfere with the legitimate. rights of landowners who had secured possession of their respective plots. e 10. The Petitioner in Dayanand also alleges that the impugned order violates Section 42, and was issued without notice to or reasonable opportunity e of hearing to the affected landowners. Thus, the order was illegal and unsustainable. Brief facts emerging from pleadings 11. On 1st September, 1988 a notification under Section 14 of the Act, e was issued declaring the intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings, inter alia for village Singhola, Delhi. Consolidation officers were - appointed, on 13th April, 1989 to take steps pursuant to the notification, as per Section 14(2) of the Act. Apparently, intervening steps were initiated by " wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 9 of 53 "' appointing an advisory committee, etc. On 21st March, 1990, the notification ~ was annulled. Again, on 24th August, 1990 the Delhi Administration by its notification re-notified Singhola Village for initiating Consolidation Proceedings in terms of Section 14 (1) of the said Act. Draft rules, to carry out consolidation were issued on 13-8-1991 . 12. On 1Oth June, 1992, the Consolidation Scheme in respect of village e Singhola was announced. On 19th March, 1993, a notification was issued by the Union of India by which the area which had been notified to be extended as e Abadi area, was sought to be acquired by the Union of India for the planned development of Delhi in terms of the provisions of Sections 4,6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Memorandum dated 28-4-1993 was issued, issued stating that in view of the proposed acquisition of land in the South of the e Village, it would not be possible to extend the Abadi in the South of the Village. It was made clear that the villagers may submit their demands for residential plots e in the North direction within a week's time to the Consolidation Officer so that proposal for the amended scheme be submitted to the Settlement Officer. or wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 10 of 53 ": / 13. On 23rd May, 1993, the consolidation scheme was revised. Later, on 14th July, 1993,the Consolidation Officer again published the draft scheme in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act as amended under Section 36 of the Act. This was apparently confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 14th July, 1993. The Consolidation Officer who is duly competent and empowered under the Act carried on the necessary proceedings. Alleging that the scheme the of re- e partition was not as per the provision of Section 21 of the Act, Writ Petition No.5024 of 1993 titled as Sh. Lachi Ram Jain Vs. Delhi Administration & Others e was filed before this Court. Later, re-partition was done between 6th September, 1993 and 15th September, 1993. However, the scheme itself was revoked/cancelled soon thereafter. On 25th March, 1994, Writ Petition No.5024 e of 1993 was dismissed as withdrawn. e 14. On 12th June, 1996, amended rules, under the Act were circulated according to which the owner of the land falling under the Abadi area would be or wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 11 of 53 entitled to receive land in the ratio 1:2. On 3rd July, 1996, a general body~ meeting was called in the Village Chopal for constitution of the Advisory Committee, which was attended by the villagers; a 17 member Advisory Committee was appointed by Resolution No.24. By resolution No. 29, dated 5-8- 1996, the draft scheme of Consolidation was published under Section 19 of the Act by the Consolidation Officer in the general body meeting of the villagers in the village Chopal attended by the Villagers. -· 15. It is alleged, and not disputed by the official respondents, that on e 14th March, 1997, a draft scheme was published and thereafter confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Act 1948. Apparently, on the footing that there was no objection to the draft approved scheme, the same was accepted on 1-4-1997, by resolution No. 35. e 16. On 9-5-1997, WPNo.1956 of 1997 was instituted by one Shri. Ved Prakash before this Court challenging the consolidation proceedings, on identical e grounds as in Neki; an interim order was issued restraining the respondents from concluding Consolidation proceedings. This writ petition was, however, " wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 12 of 53 e e e e ._ dismissed on 23-5-1997, as withdrawn. Soon thereafter, on 26th May, 1997, by Resolution No. 36 and on the vacation of the interim orders and Writ Petition No.1956 of 1997 repartition ·proceedings under Section 21 of the Act commenced. As per Dayanand, ( a fact hotly contested in Neki) repartition concluded on 2-6-1997, and allotments were made to a large number of plot holders, on 2nd June, 1997. Orders issued by this court in Neki's case 17. The petition in Neki was listed before the court on 13.06.1997. The following interim order was issued: or "Present : Mr. Ramesh Chamba, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anand Yadav for the Petitioner. Mr. Ram Dhan for the respondent -ODA CWP No. 2554197 Issue Notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted, returnable on 12th August, 1997. CM No.5075/97 Issue notice to the respondents for 12th August, 1997. Until the next date of hearing, no final order shall be made by respondent No.3 under Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 13 of 53 e - e e .. (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Dasti June 13, 1997 Cyriac Joseph (Vacation Judge)" ~/( On 18.06.1997, the court directed the third respondent not to deliver possession of any of the plots in question. Later, on 5. 11. 1998, the following order was issued, in the light of the contention of the parties, with reference to the issue of whether the consolidation proceedings in the area, notified as a "development area" could be continued. The order reads as follows: "05.11.1998 Present: Mr. Anand Yadav Ms. Geeta Mehrotra for the Petitiner Mr. Pradeep Jain for the applicant/respondent. Mr. A.K. Nigam for respondents 2 and 3 Vibha Datta Makhija for the impleaders. CW 2554197 & CM 9795/98 List the matter for hearing on 15th December, 1998. In the meantime, the pleadings shall be complete both in the writ petition as well as in the applications. Learned counsel for the DDA states that no consolidation should be allowed to be carried out as the land is needed for extension for Integrated Freight Complex at Narela. However the stand of the learned counsel for the Delhi Administration is that the consolidation proceedings must go on as it will delay the proceedings thereby adversely affecting interests of the villagers. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to directed the Vice Chairman, DDA and the Secretary, Revenue Land and Building and also Law Secretary. Delhi Administration to hold a wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 14 of 53 ~ e e e e 18. meeting so that it lends clarity to the stand of the Government. The meeting should take place on or before the next date. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will supply a copy of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the Delhi Administration. Interim order to continue. November 5, 1998 Ani/ Dev Singh, J" The inquiry report leading to the order in Dayanand During pendancy of proceedings in Neki, the Lt. Governor apparently directed an inquiry into alleged irregularities into the re-partition process, in the consolidation proceedings. The Dy. Commissioner of the concerned area was asked to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The report was submitted; it led to the issuance of the order dated 17-5-2000, assailed in Dayanand. The enquiry report is on record; relevant portions of the report (which contain the terms of reference, and recommendations) are extracted below: "' "ENQUIRY REPORT As desired vide note dated 28.01.2000 by the Secretary to Lt. Governor, Delhi an inquiry has been conducted by the wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 15 of 53 1 ,.. e e e e " undersigned into the consolidation and acquisition proceedings in t/l village Singhola, sub-Division Narela, District North-West, Delhi. The terms and reference of this inquiry are placed at Annexure -1. CONSOLIDA TJON: From the record available in the Tehsil Office, it surmises that the consolidation proceedings were initiated twice in this village, once in September, 1988 and then in July, 1996. A chart of the main dates of the two sets of proceedings as entered in the respective consolidation register is placed at Annexure -11. It would be seen that repartition proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, were undertaken between 06.09.93 to 15.09.93 in proceedings were dropped and resumed again in the year 1996. it is the proceedings in the second instance that have been referred to in the terms and reference of this inquiry and are being covered in the details given below, corresponding to serial No.1 of the order of Inquiry. 2. As per the entries recorded in the consolidation proceedings register (II), during the proceedings of repartition under section 21 (1) between 26.05.1997 and 02.06.1997, 169 residential plots and 187 industrial plots were carved out and recorded. Out of 169 residential plots, 105 were of the size of 2 bigha and 2 Biswas each, while 64 plots were of miscellaneous sizes. Details of these 169 plots and of miscellaneous sizes of 64 plots are available at Annexure - Ill A &B. All the 187 industrial plots were of 6 biswas each, details at Annexure -IV. As per resolution No. 33, in all 06 khasra Nos. were taken in Kayami (confirmation in situ) done in the extended Abadi, whose details are available at Annexure -V. Total areas of residential plots was 313-03 bighas and of all industrial plots 2 was 56-02 bighas. Residential Kayamis were in 11-05 big has. The grand total comes to 380 big has 10 biswas. The possession of all these plots is shown as handed over on 03.06.1997 in the consolidation proceedings register, signed by wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 16 of 53 ,.. - e e e " 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A.C.O. Under resolution No.36 (number used twice in the proceedings). It bears signatures of 212 effected persons. A further resolution No.37, dated 03.06.1997, records the presence of 273 persons confirming the distribution of pass books to them on the same date. These two resolutions imply that :- a) All this was done physically on one day itself, i.e. 03.06.97, and with the consent of all right holders shown present and signing the same day. 3. As per the details available in this Register, following officials were associated with the consolidation proceedings. Sh. G. C. Sharma Sh. S.P. Chawla Sh. Ram Kishan Consolidation Officer Assistant Consolidation Officer Kanungo Sh. Rajender Kumar Patwari Sh.; Harish Kumar Patwari. Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx (B) As for the area of possession reportedly given after consolidation, if has to be appreciated here that the details given above cover only the area that is included in the Abadi Deh (initial La/ Dora at the the time of settlement), the phirni (extended La/ Dora in 1951 -52 and the extended phirni area (under this Consolidation). This includes plots carved out and allotted under residential, industrial and Kayami categories, However, as per the register, there were 383 Khatas in all in this village, out of which 212 have been recorded as having been given individual possession and 273 as being given the pass books also on 03.06.1997. These will also cover a vast area of agricultural land, the details of which have not been furnished above, but have been reflected in this map in sky blue colour, as distinct from the red colour which covers the plotted area. If any further identification of possession of agricultural holding, as distinct form plots, is desired that will require the following additional details : wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 17 of 53 ~~ ! >""' e e e e I) Identification of khatadras in these 383 Khatas with individual <:/) details of their holdings both agricultura/as well as in the extended phimi. II) Since the possession has been shown to 212 person, whose names alone have been given, their identification of holdings as after consolidation proceedings. Ill) Identification of the holdings of both kind of 273 persons shown as receiving pass books. As mentioned before, it is not clear whether all these details are required to be furnished in this inquiry. If that be so, it would need a physical survey of the entire village Khasrawise, syncherinised with verification of pass books. This alone will establish the position of physical possession on ground vis. - a vis what has been shown on record. This will require substantial additional time. Of course, this will also require active co-operation of the Khata holders, which may not be forth coming easily, and from all, as would be clear after perusal of the findings of this inquiry which follows : Nonetheless a sample survey was got conducted in respect of the holdings inside and outside the La! Dora, which indicates that a mixed possession may be obtaining on ground, mixed meaning as prior to consolidation and as after that. Much resistance was offered during the sample survey.; a complete survey will require detailing additional field staff and precautions on the law and order side. , COURT CASES : During the course of this inquiry it has been brought to my notice that the proceedings of consolidation have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 13.06.1997 and subsequently a contempt petition has also been filed against the consolidation officer. The Court is understood to have also set up a committee of GNCTD and DDA functionaries. Copies of some of these order are placed at Annexure - V/11-A, B, C & D. wpc No. 2554/97 & connected 18 of 53 !--· e e e e FINDINGS Before I record findings, which are in respect of item No. (1) of the terms of reference and based on the consolidation proceedings register No.2 (photocopOy placed as Annexure No.IX), I may underline that the writ petition referred to above is understood to be hearing into the merits of consolidation are not a part of these findings (nor was this included in the terms and reference desiring this inquiry). Certain aspects which arouse curiosity and have come to the fore on perusal of the consolidation register are as follows :- I) The register has not been serialised. II) Pages have been left blank between resolutions. Ill) Pages have been left blank even with in the course of one resolution, that too even in the most important proceedings of repartition as from 26.05.1997 to 02.06.1997. IV) Resolution Nos. have been repeated (No.36) also and there are contradictory resolutions (25,27,30) too. V) While the initial proceedings have the signatures of more than one functionary, including and specially those of the Consolidation Officer, the later and material proceedings have only one signature, purportedly that of the A.C.O. VI) The signatures of A. C. 0. Need verification. VII) The proceedings from 26.05.97 to 02.06.97 have not been concluded/singed and when