NIRMAL SINGH Vs. GOVT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Collector, South-West on an appeal preferred by respondents No.4 and 5 against respondents No.6(a) to (c), against the order dated 03.02.1982, passed by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. By the impugned order, the aforesaid order dated 03.02.1982 passed by the SDM/Revenue Assistant was set aside and the entry in the revenue record standing in the name of the deceased respondent No.6 was directed to be deleted and further, the 1/8th share of Sh. Rati Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4 and 5 herein, was declared in favour of the latter.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that though the aforesaid order is appealable under the statute, but as the petitioner was unaware of the aforesaid proceedings which culminated in the impugned order, he could not approach the Appellate Authority to assail the same and has had to approach this Court for relief on the ground that he is the owner of two and a half bighas of land, out of a plot of land measuring 39 bighas 17 biswas as detailed in para-2 of the writ petition, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rangpuri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, South-West, New Delhi, which was purchased by him from the legal heirs of respondent No.6, by executing a set of documents on 06.03.2007. It is submitted that the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.6 have sold smaller plots of land from out of the larger chunk, to third parties, similarly situated as the petitioner, and two such purchasers have sought impleadment in the present proceedings by filing an application registered as C.M. No.20919/2010.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondents No.4 and 5 states that he does not oppose the aforesaid submission made by counsel for respondent No.6, but reserves the right of respondents No.4 & 5 to take all the pleas available to them on facts and in law, to oppose the legal proceedings proposed to be initiated by the legal heirs of respondent No.6. He further states as far as his clients are concerned, they do not recognize the sale/purchase of the subject land, on the strength of the documents placed on record by the petitioner.