VINOD KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by the petitioners in this petition is as under:-

(2.) Petitioners claim that the consolidation proceedings of Village Kanjhawala of which petitioners and the contesting respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the permanent residents, had commenced in the year 1993 and the consolidation scheme was confirmed in the year 1997 and thereafter, objections to the consolidation scheme were invited but since no objections were received, the repartition in terms of the consolidation scheme took place in the year 1998. On the application of respondent No.4 and 5, the Consolidation Officer vide order of 13 th August, 2001 had made allotment from Khasra No.33/11 (where Village Cooperative Society had purportedly built up shops and had let them out to the petitioners), to respondent No. 3 to 8 herein (henceforth referred to as private respondents).

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed upon the decision in Ramnath vs. Financial Commissioner & Anr., 1984 AIR(Del) 178 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No.143/1983, titled as Ram Swarup vs. Ram Nath & Anr., 1989 38 DLT 473, to contend that the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the consolidation scheme as there is no power of review with him. Reliance was also placed upon the decisions in Gram Panchayat and Ors. vs. Har Lal and Ors.,1973 ILR(P&H) 408; Siri Chand vs. Commissioner, Ambala, 1975 PunLJ 6; Bal Kaur and Ors. vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and Ors.,1980 82 PunLR 299; Johri Mal vs. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab & Ors., 1967 69 PunLR 824, to contend that petitioners have locus standi in view of their settled possession in the subject land, i.e., Khasra No.33/11 much prior to the commencement of the consolidation proceedings and have right to challenge the allotment of the subject land to the private respondents being without jurisdiction and in violation of the scheme of consolidation and thus, the order of 13 th August, 2001 of the Consolidation Officer upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide order of 11 th January, 2007 impugned herein, deserves to be quashed.