Delhi High Court
Asha Lata Batra And Ors. vs Dharam Devi And Ors. on 21 March, 2005
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
CM No.4235/2005 Exemption granted subject to just exceptions.
LPA Nos. 571-577/2005 and CM No. 4234/2005
1. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 3650/2002 decided on 3.9.2004 There was delay in refiling the matter and, therefore, to condone the delay of 126 days, C.M. No. 4235/2005 has been filed.
It is not possible to understand as to how the file could be missing for 126 days. It is not satisfactorily explained nor are any details given. We are not satisfied with the explanation rendered. Therefore, the application is required to be rejected.
2. That apart, with a view to see that no injustice is done, we have examined the matter. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge wherein the matter has been considered in detail. This is a case wherein there was a question of repartition of land under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act.1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. Learned single Judge has pointed out that it is not for the Court to reappreciate the evidence and determine the dispute which is purely factual. Jurisdiction of this Court is limited to see whether the authorities have considered all material and relevant evidence and have excluded none. It was also pointed out that the Court can only see whether there is no illegal exercise of jurisdiction or whether jurisdiction has been exercised with material irregularity. As the matter was being remanded, with a view to see that there is no prejudice to the parties, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that it would not be proper to dissect the evidence any further. In paragraphs 23 to 31 the learned single Judge has pointed out various aspects by which it can be said that had the Financial Commissioner examined the matter thoroughly, the present situation would not have arisen.
4. We are not commenting about the nature of evidence, the manner in which it was appreciated and the manner in which it should be appreciated. The impugned judgment is in detail and it is hoped that the Financial Commissioner will bear each and every aspect of the matter in mind and will decide the same in accordance with law. Learned single Judge has pointed out in paragraph 29 of the judgment that it is a case of double allotment. Either wrong resolutions were passed during consolidation or it is case of tampering. If it is a case of tampering, it requires serious consideration and the Financial Commissioner shall see that appropriate proceedings are filed before the Police to take action.
5. This appeal and the applications are not required to be entertained. Hence, they are dismissed.