GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent findings returned by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner are that there was a clear dispute about transfer of 20 bighas and 8 biswas of agricultural land situated in village Ranhola, New Delhi, as detailed in the impugned order (Annexure P-11) [hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land'] in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.4- Shri Atma Ram on the strength of General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the recorded Bhumidar of the subject land i.e. respondent No.2 �1/2 Smt. Saraswati and so, mutation of the subject land in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Tehsildar is contrary to the mandate of Section 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 which requires reference of such disputes to the Revenue Assistant concerned. Since the concerned Tehsildar vide order (Annexure P-4) had mutated the subject land in favour of the petitioner in violation of Section 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, therefore, Tehsildar's order (Annexure P-4) has been set aside by the Collector concerned, which has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned order (Annexure P-11).

(2.) IT stands noted in the impugned order that there is a strong suspicion about the valid execution of the Power of Attorney by respondent- Smt. Saraswati in favour of respondent- Shri Atma Ram, as the execution of the aforesaid Power of Attorney on 28th August, 2000 is at Cuttack, whereas the stamp paper on which it is purportedly executed, was purchased at Delhi and its notarization was also done at Delhi and on the strength of the aforesaid observations, the finding returned is that there was no valid transfer of title in favour of the petitioner, as respondent �1/2 Shri Atma Ram had lacked authority to execute valid transfer of title in respect of the subject land on behalf of its recorded owner i.e. respondent- Smt. Saraswati.

(3.) TO the contrary is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, who supports the impugned order while pointing out that though the Tehsildar in the order (Annexure P-4) had noted about respondent- Smt. Saraswati denying the execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent - Shri Atma Ram, but still had mutated the subject land in favour of the petitioner by merely observing that the execution of the Sale Deed remains undisputed, while ignoring that respondent- Shri Atma Ram had executed the Sale Deed in respect of the subject land on the strength of disputed General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by respondent- Smt. Saraswati. Reliance was placed upon decision in 'Narain Singh & Anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi' 2009 I AD (Delhi) 695 to remind that a writ Court cannot examine the merits of a decision by the Financial Commissioner as Appellate Court and the only jurisdiction of the writ Court is to see as to whether there is any error in the decision making process by the Financial Commissioner.