HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. -
(1.) POINTS need to be decided. Firstly, whether the instant petition is maintainable. Secondly, if the instant petition is maintainable, whether
the impugned order dated 23.5.2005 can be sustained.
(2.) TO appreciate the issues it may be noted that certain lands were recorded as Bunjar Quadim (waste land) when Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
was promulgated. Under the mandate of Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act these lands were shown vested in the Gaon Sabha. Consolidation
commenced in the village. Part of Gaon Sabha land was utilized for
extending the village
Abadi. The Consolidation Officer allotted certain plots to the petitioners for their residence within the extended Abadi of the village as per notified scheme. The issue pertaining to consolidation was fought by the respondents by way of an appeal before the Additional Collector and finally a writ petition in this court which was dismissed with an observation that respondents may seek remedies as available in law.
Respondents filed applications before the revenue assistant praying that the land being shown as vested in Gaon Sabha when Delhi Land Reforms
Act 1954 was promulgated be set aside. The matter was litigated till the
highest authority, i.e. Financial Commissioner. Respondents lost the
(3.) THEREUPON respondents filed 2 suits registered as Suit Nos. 391/1980 and 90/1981 seeking declarations and injunctions. Declarations sought
were that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities under the
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948 be declared illegal. In the 2 suits various issues were framed. Inter alia, an issue was framed whether the jurisdiction of the civil
courts was barred in view of Section 44 of the Consolidation Act. An
issue was framed whether the orders passed by the revenue authorities
were illegal, void or without jurisdiction";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.