RAJINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order passed by the Financial Commissioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation Prevention & Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as applicable in Delhi (hereafter called "the Act"). By that order, the Financial Commissioner set aside that extension of date for consolidation of scheme (in village Pooth Khurd, Delhi) from 23.02.1998 to 31.08.1998 as irregular, and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer, to proceed further on the basis of a resolution dated 23.02.1998. This was pursuant to a Revision Petition filed by Angrej Singh and others, challenging the Consolidation Proceedings of Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi; the said revision petitioners are parties to these proceedings, and are referred to as "the contesting respondents".

(2.) A notification under section 14(1) of the Act, for consolidation proceedings was issued on 05.09.1988. A Consolidation Officer was appointed on 13.04.1989. After considerable time, another Consolidation Officer was appointed on 16.08.1996. Likewise, the Advisory Committee, which was initially constituted on 09.06.1989, was reconstituted on 11.09.1996. The consolidation scheme for the village was announced on 23.02.1998 by the Consolidation Officer. The contesting respondents alleged certain irregularities, and sought intervention of the Financial Commissioner in the matter. Consolidation proceedings were stayed on 20.04.2000; the stay was continued. An application was thereafter moved, which led to the Financial Commissioner vacating the stay on 15.01.2002.

(3.) The order of the Financial Commissioner dated 15.02.2002 was challenged before this Court in a writ petition, filed in 2002, by the contesting respondents. This Court passed an order on 25.05.2002 modifying the stay order; an interim restraint against delivery of physical possession of land to subsequent purchasers (who purchased the land after 23.02.1998) was directed. This Court had made its order on consent of the parties and without prejudice to their contention. It was also stated that the modification would operate till the final order of the Financial Commissioner and that the order would not come in the way of the Financial Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law. The revenue authorities including the Consolidation Officer were at liberty to proceed with consolidation proceedings in accordance with the scheme.