BIMLA DEVI Vs. FINANCE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Financial Commissioner in purported exercise of powers under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner challenges the impugned order on two grounds: the first ground of challenge is that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition inasmuch as an earlier revision petition filed by the respondents 5 to 9 against the same order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Revenue Assistant had been dismissed. As such, a second revision did not lie against the said order in respect of the same parties and the same subject matter. The second ground raised by the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete code in itself and Bhumidari rights have to be declared under the Act alone. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction in this matter. In this regard, he has also referred to Section 185 of the said Act which clearly indicates that except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the said Schedule. Sr. No.4 of Schedule I pertains to application for declaration of Bhumidari rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the question of declaration of Bhumidari rights are concerned it is the only Court mentioned in Column 7 of I Schedule which is the Revenue Assistant who alone is competent to decide these questions.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that although the earlier revision petition had been dismissed and that the said revision petition was directed against the order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Revenue Assistant, the second revision application was preferred by respondents 2 to 4 and not by respondents 5 to 9. Secondly, he submits that respondents 2 to 4 had preferred the revision petition on the basis of their original application which was not allowed by the Revenue Assistant by his order dated 9.8.2000. He indicated that the respondents 5 to 9 had filed a separate application and both these applications were taken up together by the Revenue Assistant and decided by the common order dated 9.8.2000. He submitted that his application was based on a different sets of facts and, therefore, he was entitled to move another revision petition. He further submitted that in fact, his revision petition was already pending when the revision petition filed by respondents 5 to 9 was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by the order dated 8.12.2000. As such, the dismissal of the revision petition filed by respondents 5 to 9 would not affect the revision petition filed by respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 further submitted that in view of Section 186 of the said Act when a question regarding title is raised in a suit or proceedings pending under the Act the same has to be decided by a competent civil Court and the Revenue Assistant is required to frame an issue on the question of title and submit the record to the competent Civil Court for a decision of that issue only. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 186 the Civil Court after refraining the issue, if necessary, has to decide such issue and return the record to the Revenue Court which submitted it. It is, therefore, the learned counsel's contention that till the question of title is decided by the competent Civil Court proceedings before the Revenue Court ought to have been adjourned sine die.

(3.) . Taking the first challenge in respect of the impugned order dated 23.4.2002, it is apparent that two sets of respondents, being respondents 2 to 4 and respondents 5 to 9 had by separate applications sought adjournment of the case before the Revenue Assistant till the issue of title was decided by the Civil Court. By the order dated 9:8.2000 the Revenue Assistant after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the question before the Revenue Court was with regard to the declaration of Bhumidari rights on the basis of adverse possession. In view of this the Revenue Assistant dismissed both the applications filed by the different sets of respondents. Respondents 5 to 9 as well as respondents 2 to 4 preferred separate revision petitions under Section 187 of the said Act. It so happened that the revision petition filed by Respondents 5 to 9 was disposed of by an order dated 8.12.2000 by the Financial Commissioner. In this order dismissing the revision petition, the Financial Commissioner clearly held that in the impugned order of the Revenue Assistant dated 9.8.2000, it was clearly indicated that the matter before him related only to declaration of Bhumidari rights by adverse possession under the Revenue Act and that it did not relate to the issue of title/succession. In this regard it would be pertinent to note explanation to Section 186 sub-section (1) which is as under:-