RAM DUTT Vs. DEV DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners and the private respondents 1 to 27 are members of a family. THEy/their predecessors owned land in the revenue estate of Burari, Delhi since prior to the enactment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It appears that after the coming into force of the said Act, a part of the said land was recorded in the Bhumidari of the petitioners only. THE respondents 1 to 27/their predecessors filed a proceeding under Section 11 of the Act for declaration that they also were Bhumidars of the said land exclusively entered in the name of the petitioners. THE petitioners claimed the said land to have exclusively vested in them subsequent to oral partition and repartition during consolidation proceedings in the year 1975-76. THE said proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 27/their predecessors were dismissed by the Court of the Revenue Assistant and the First Appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed on 20th March, 1978. THE respondents 1 to 27/their predecessors preferred a Second Appeal to the Financial Commissioner (impleaded as respondent no.28 in these proceedings) which was accepted vide order dated 8th February, 1979 and the respondents 1-27/their predecessors were declared as Bhumidars (in accordance with their shares) alongwith the petitioners in respect of those land contained in Khewat Nos. 73 and 85 in the Revenue Estate of village Burari. THE said order was directed to be given effect to in the revenue records.

(2.) IN pursuance and in implementation of the order dated 8th February, 1979 (supra) of the Financial Commissioner, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31st December, 1982 ordered modification in the allotment pursuant to repartition.

(3.) THE petitioners then preferred SLP 9594/1985 which was also dismissed vide order dated 27th January, 1986. However it appears that it was argued by the petitioners before the Supreme Court that the petitioners in their separate allotment against joint shares with the respondents in the Khewat Nos.73 and 85, been not allotted their entire 1/5th share. THE Supreme Court thus, while dismissing the SLP observed that 'if the petitioners have not been allotted 1/5th of the total holding as determined in the order dated 8th February, 1979 it will be open to the petitioners to resort to any other remedy available in law including a suit if it is permissible.'