WPC No.5135/2007 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5135/2007 % Date of decision : 19th February, 2010. RAM PHOOL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajendra Dutt, advocate. versus TEJ SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arvind Rana, advocate for Mr.V.P.Rana, advocate for R-1. Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, advocate for R-2&3 Mr. N.S.Dalal, advocate for Respondent. Mr. Subhash Kamboj, advocate for counsel for L.R.s of R-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. Petitioner-Mr. Ram Phool and his five co-sharers-respondents herein had a joint khata of agricultural land in Vill. Khera Kalan, Delhi. 2. Consolidation proceedings were initiated vide Notification dated 19th December, 1996 under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Thereafter, draft consolidation scheme was announced on 18th June, 1999 and confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 13th August, 1999. The repartition scheme was published and undertaken under Section WPC No.5135/2007 Page 2 21(1) from 7th December, 1999 to 10th December, 1999. 3. Some of the co-sharers sought partition of the agricultural land. The petitioner and another co-sharer-Mr.Ram Kishan objected to the partition of Khewat. In view of the consolidation scheme and Section 21(2) of the Act read with Rule 4(5) of the applicable Rules, the objection was upheld and it was held that till all co-sharers agreed to separation of the Khata of the Khewat, joint holdings cannot be separated. This Order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer is now the subject matter of an appeal pending before the Settlement Officer. In this appeal, there are allegations that all the co-sharers had agreed to partition, etc. We are not concerned with this appeal, which is still sub judice. 4. The consolidation scheme also provided for allotment of residential plots and industrial plots. Each shareholder was entitled to separate a industrial plot as well as residential plot after necessary deduction of value from the joint khata. The petitioner and all the co-sharers agreed to the said deduction from the joint khata for allotment of separate industrial and residential plots. Accordingly, the joint khata of the agricultural land was reduced by the proportionate value and the joint holders/co-sharers were allotted the following industrial and residential plots as per details given below :- WPC No.5135/2007 Page 3 S.No. Name of Person Industrial Plot Residential Plot 1. Sh.Tej singh 108/492(0-06) 106/1 (1-14) 106/2 (0-08) 2. Sh.Om Parkash 108/496 (0-06) 106/172 (2-02) 3. Sh.Ram Kumar 108/487 (0-06) 106/475 (2-02) 4. Sh.Ram Phool 108/490 (0-06) 106/53 (2-02) 5. Sh.Sukhbir Singh 108/495 (0-06) 106/478 (2-02) 6. Sh.Ram Kishan 108/491 (0-06) 106/143 (2-02) 7. Sh.Raj Bir 108/494 (0-06) 106/2 (1-14) 106/455 (0-08) 5. The petitioner and all co-sharers were issued passbook and even possession of the industrial and residential plots were given. As noticed above, the scheme of partition was published and implemented by 10th December, 1999. The petitioner did not at that time raise any objection with regard to allotment of industrial and residential plots. 6. On 6th January, 2000, the petitioner herein moved an application for surrender of the industrial and residential plot allotted to him in a consolidation scheme and wanted allotment of agricultural land in lieu of the said plots. This application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8th May, 2003 and additional agricultural land measuring 4-16 biswa in khasra no. 68/18 was allotted to the joint khata of the petitioner with his co- sharers. WPC No.5135/2007 Page 4 7. One of the co-sharers, Mr.Tej Singh filed an appeal against the said order of the Consolidation Officer before the S.D.M. i.e. the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Narela. During the pendency of the appeal proceedings, son of the petitioner-Mr. Ajit Singh who was also power of attorney holder of the petitioner, appeared and made a statement that the matter had been amicably settled and in terms of the said settlement, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 8th May, 2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be set aside. The petitioner has not disputed the said statement or challenged the same. 8. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal vide order dated 25th May, 2006. While allowing the appeal he recorded on merits that all the co-sharers had agreed to deduction of value in the joint khata of agricultural land and thereafter individual industrial and residential plots were allotted to the co-sharers. Thus right to allotment of industrial and agricultural land were crystallized and perfected. He observed that after the said crystalisation and perfection, no party could be allowed to withdraw and change their stand as it would effect the entire scheme. It was further observed that the Consolidation Officer was wrong in allowing the application filed by the petitioner without notice to and hearing the other co- sharers, as it would affect their rights. 9. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) also went into the question whether the petitioner should be allowed to retain the WPC No.5135/2007 Page 5 industrial and residential plot allotted to him, which was surrendered. It was noticed that the said plots had been allotted to third parties and therefore the petitioner could not be reallotted the said plots. Balancing out equities, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Narela held that the petitioner alone would be entitled to further allotment of 4.16 biswa of agricultural land and the said land would not be treated as joint khewat of the co-sharers. This was a just and fair solution to the entire problem which had arisen due to the petitioner’s conduct of first agreeing to deduction from joint khata for allotment of industrial and residential plots and then backing out and seeking agricultural land in lieu of the allotment made to him. The petitioner alone was responsible for the said situation. In any case agricultural land of equal value was directed to be allotted to him. 10. Learned Financial Commissioner has referred to these aspects in his order dated 21st May, 2007 and has upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a contradiction in the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Financial Commissioner and the order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the Consolidation officer refusing to separate joint khata of the khewat. It is stated that appeal against the order dated 9th November, 2001 is still pending. The said contention though attractive at the first instance, on a WPC No.5135/2007 Page 6 deeper scrutiny has no merit. Separation of joint khata of the khewat on agricultural land is something separate and distinct from allotment of industrial and residential plots to the co-sharers. Agricultural land in the joint khata still remains common and the issue whether it should be partitioned/separated is subject matter of appeal. However, the parties had agreed to separate industrial and residential plots and deduction of proportionate value from their joint khata of their respective shares in the agricultural land. Having agreed to the same, now the petitioner cannot be allowed to back out after the said allotment of industrial and residential land had crystallized and had become final. The impugned orders, therefore, do not in any way effect or negate the order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed by Mr. Tej Singh-respondent no.1 herein remains to be decided on merits. It is clarified that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Narela impugned in the present Writ Petition will have no bearing on the decision of the pending appeal which relates to separation of joint khata of agricultural land. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2010 P/NA