ASHISH Vs. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Collector/Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, North District, Delhi, in an appeal preferred by the respondent No.3/Samiti.

(2.) Vide order dated 31.01.2013, the respondent No.2 had stated that he was making compliances of an order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) 7360/2012, a petition filed by the respondent No.3/Samiti herein, whereunder directions were issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the respondent No.3/Samiti for seeking possession of the plot allotted to it during the consolidation proceedings that were held in the year 1954. By the impugned order, the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer on applications filed by the petitioners and the respondent No.3/Samiti, was quashed and set aside by the respondent No.2 and directions were issued to the Tehsildar (Alipur) to hand over the physical possession of a parcel of land measuring 6 Bighas situated in village Khera Kalan to the original allottees and their legal heirs with immediate effect. Further, the entries made in the records of rights as per the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, were directed to be cancelled.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 was not competent to pass the impugned order and that the said order was passed behind their back and without affording them a hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent No.2 does not enjoy judicial powers under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 for hearing the appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the remedy against the said order of the Consolidation Officer lies by way of a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. He further states that it was not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 that the members of the respondent No.3/Samiti had already filed a consolidated appeal against the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, before the Settlement Officer, which was pending adjudication. Lastly, learned counsel states that while passing the impugned order, the respondent No.2 had flouted the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not called for seeking their response to the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, more so when the said order had been passed in their favour.