LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-35

OM PARKASH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI

Decided On March 05, 2007
OM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are residents of Village Mundka, Delhi. They are aggrieved by an order dated 21.5.1991 passed by the Financial Commissioner allowing a revision petition filed by Respondent No. 3 Mange Ram against an order dated 10.9.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby a warrant of possession in respect of plot number 848/1 measuring 5 biswas was issued in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 22.3.1953 a notification was issued under Section 14 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 ('Act') in respect of the Estate of Village Mundka. The right holders were asked to make the demands for allotment of plots in the extended Laldora between April 1st and 30th 1976. The deceased father of petitioners 1 to 3, Sri Deep Chand and the father of Petitioners 4 to 6, Sri Sajjan Kumar and the petitioners herein made demands for allotment of plots in the extended Laldora on 14th,15th and 16th April 1976. The petitioners are petty land holders. Their total holding before the consolidation operation was a little less than three and a half bighas. In fact, they were joint Khatedars with others. Shri Deep Chand, deceased father of petitioners 1 to 3, had, therefore, asked for allotment of plot only in lieu of the agricultural land. The petitioners and Shri Sajjan Kumar asked for ex gratia allotment of plots for residence.

(3.) On 27.5.1976 the scheme of consolidation was confirmed under Section 20 of the Act. Obviously, some of the persons who had laid claims had not been considered in the scheme of consolidation that had been confirmed. A resolution was passed by the panchayat on 29.4.1979 suggesting variations in the scheme and on 8.5.1979 the Settlement Officer suggested, inter alia: "1. Applicants allowed by the predecessors may be included in the Scheme. 2. In addition to the applicants indicated in Annexure II there are some more applications which were submitted by the Haqdars in April, 1976 but have not been included in the Scheme. These may also be included in the Scheme."