CHANDER BHAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dtd. 30/11/2021 passed in W.P.(C) 6365/2019 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein which in turn had challenged the order dtd. 4/4/2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi.

(2.) The dispute between the parties arises out of a suit filed by the respondents under Sec. 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "DLR Act') in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.1196/1 (4-16) situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Karala, Delhi. The suit was filed by the respondents claiming that the respondents are the joint co-bhumidars of the above said land. They claimed that the land was allotted to them in the consolidation proceedings. It was further claimed that the respondent nos.2 to 21 were in possession of the said land, with respondent no. 2 staying on the said land. It was further claimed that while the respondent no.2 had gone to attend some Court proceedings in Jaipur, the appellants had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the land in question and started construction over it. When respondent no.2 came back from Jaipur on 27/4/1998, he came to know of the illegal encroachment. A police complaint was filed against the appellants and thereafter a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed in a Civil Court, which was later withdrawn. The present suit under Sec. 84 of the DLR Act was thereafter filed.

(3.) In defence, the appellants claimed that the predecessor of the respondent nos.2 to 21 herein had sold the land to the appellants by way of an oral sale and put them in actual physical possession of the land in 1970. They further claimed that in the consolidation proceedings conducted in 1975-76, they were recorded as being in possession of the land. They further claimed that a General Power of Attorney dtd. 6/1/1988 and a receipt of Rs.25,000.00 was also executed by the erstwhile owner of the land in their favour. They claimed that as they were in continuous possession since 1970 or at least since 1988, the suit was barred by limitation.