SIRI RAM BATRA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for determination is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of allotment of Beshi Phirni are as a result of inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the extended Phirni as a result of the amended Scheme of consolidation confirmed on 12-8-1991.

(2.) One Dinesh Kumar, respondent No.4 in this appeal, was right-holder of land in field No.1244 at Alipur at the time of commencement of the operation of consolidation. The said land was included in the phirni (Laldora) when the original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force in the year 1987. As per the Scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land in lieu of field No.1244. The area so allotted was comprised in field Nos. 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22. Accordingly he was put in possession of the said lands during the repartition proceedings in the year 1987. Thereafter, in the year 1988 the respondent No. 4 sold his land in Killa No. 28/22 measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas in the year 1988 to Gautam Jain, respondent No.3 herein. This Killa No.28/22 was Khasra No. 324 earlier, i.e., pre-consolidation field number. Since respondent No.4 had already taken benefit of the inclusion of his land in Field No.1244 in the Laldora the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 25-3-1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos. 102/19 and 102/20 to respondent No.3 in lieu of Killa No.28/22, which was included in Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme of consolidation. The respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), making a grievance that the Consolidation Officer had committed an error in not extending the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by not allotting him three times of the value of his land included within the phirni as per the amended Scheme. The Consolidation Officer, in the comments offered by him to the revision petition, stated that the Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa No.28/22 within the extended phirni has been given to the appellants on the ground that Killa No.28/22 actually formed the pre-consolidation Khasra No.324, which was in their bhumidari. It was further explained that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be to the previous/original bhumidars and that the respondent No.3 was not entitled to such benefit as he had purchased the land in question, which was mutated in his name much after the formation of the original Scheme. In view of the comments the appellants were impleaded as parties to the revision petition. The learned Financial Commissioner, after elaborately considering the respective contentions of the parties in the light of the material placed before him, allowed the claim of respondent No.3 by order dated 23-10-1992. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order of the Financial Commissioner filed the Civil Writ Petition No.68 of 1993 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court by a detailed and well-considered order did not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.468 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge affirming the order of the Financial Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act (Annexure P-1 - translated version), urged that the appellants being old bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of inclusion of the land Killa No.28/22 (the original Khasra No. 324), of which the appellants were bhumidars. In particular, he drew our attention to the portion in Annexure P-1 "While allotting plots the right for allotment would be of the old bhumidars only if their names are mentioned in the list". According to him respondent No.3 is not the old bhumidar. The learned counsel urged that under the Scheme the appellants were entitled for the benefit, if any meaning is to be given to the use of the words "old bhumidars" (Sabik Bhumidars) in Annexure P-1.