R N SAHNI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by non-reservation of their farm house sanctioned in pre-consolidation Khasra No. 763/2, 765/1 and 766, falling in post- consolidation Khasra No. 33/2 & 33/9, petitioners had preferred a statutory revision before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in the year 1994 raising challenge to the repartition carried in the revenue estate of Village- Kapasehra, Delhi during the year 1988 was raised without filing objections to the Draft Scheme, prepared by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1987.

(2.) FINANCIAL Commissioner, Delhi, vide impugned order of 6th February, 1995, has dismissed petitioners' revision petition holding that it is borne out from the copy of karvai register that petitioners have been allotted post-consolidation area as per their recorded demand, that is to say, there was no deficiency in the allotment of the land to the petitioners in lieu of their pre-consolidation holdings and if, 1 bigha and 18 biswas of land in Khasra No.33/2 & 33/9 is added to the khata of the petitioners, it would lead to excess allotment to the petitioners, which is not permissible, as it is not the case of the petitioners that some other land of theirs is to be withdrawn from them as the result of their aforesaid demand. Regarding reservation of' aforesaid land (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land') of the petitioners', it stands noted in the impugned order that this was to be done at the time of preparation of Scheme of Consolidation and since the petitioners had not filed any objections to the draft list, therefore, now belatedly petitioners cannot claim aforesaid reservation which would lead to modification/ amendment of the confirmed scheme of consolidation, which is impermissible.

(3.) TO test the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, writ petition filed by the petitioners to assail the impugned order, was perused and thereupon, it became evident that the petitioners have nowhere disclosed that how and from where petitioners had come to know in the year 1994 about the reallocation of the subject land to the third respondent, who in turn had sold it to the fourth respondent and mutation in respect thereof was sanctioned in September, 1993 . It is not the case of the petitioners that they had never visited the subject land during the consolidation proceedings and therefore they were oblivious of the consolidation proceedings.