RAM NATH Vs. FINANCE COMMISSIONER DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugning the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 10-5-1982.
(2.)These are the facts. Under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (the Act), repartition took place in village Sanoth in the year 1976. Subsequently by orders dated 31-1-1981 and 10-3-1981 the Consolidation Officer withdrew the land from Kilas Nos. 47/12 (4 bighas-11 bis.) and 47/19 (2 bighas-7 bis.) situated in this revenue estate from the petitioner Ram Nath. First he alloted the land as withdrawn from Ram Nath to Gao Sabha, and subsequently to Ram Saroop, respondent No. 2 herein, after taking it away from the Gaon Sabha. This is a straight fight between the petitioner Ram Nath and the respondent Ram Saroop. I will refer to them by name now.
(3.)The action of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Ram Nath before the Financial Commissioner in 1982 by means of a revision petition under sec. 42 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner byorder dated 24-9-1981 set aside the two orders of the Consolidation Officer which were impugned in the revision petition. In the course of his judgment he observed that "the entire drama has been played in order to give undue benefit to Ram Saroop at the cost of Ram Nath for reasons best known to the Consolidation Officer."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.