Delhi High Court - Orders
Balbir Singh & Ors vs Consolidation Officer & Ors on 22 September, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15822/2022 and CM APPL. 49239/2022
BALBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan and Mr. Aditya
Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
CONSOLIDATION OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD
with Mr. Arjun, Advocate for R-1, R-
3 and R-4.
Ms. Rhea Verma, Advocate for R-
2/DJB with Mr. R. N. Maurya, AE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 22.09.2023 Mr. Sunil Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Financial Commissioner has proceeded to hold that by reason of urbanization of Village : Jaffarpur Kalan vide notification dated 16.05.2017 issued under section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act'), the petitioners cannot seek redressal of their grievance before him.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that no rasta/access was provided to their parcel of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1005 (4-16), 1006 (4-
16) and 1007 (4-16) situate in Village : Jaffarpur Kalan under the approved consolidation scheme.
3. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contends, that the surrounding land now vests in the Gaon Sabha and since the village stands urbanised, the Financial Commissioner has ceased to have jurisdiction This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15822/2022 Page 1 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2023 at 22:37:30 and can do nothing in relation to the approved consolidation scheme. She submits that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach a civil court.
4. However, Mr. Chauhan points-out that upon urbanization the Financial Commissioner only loses jurisdiction over the land as a revenue official under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 ('DLR Act'); but continues to have the powers under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. In support of his submission, counsel cites Umed Singh vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.1 "14. No other provision of the Delhi Land Reforms Act or any other provision of any other enactment was brought to our notice due to which the revenue estate on being declared to be urbanized might affect the status of the land located therein. Accordingly, the lands situated in Village Bamnolli, irrespective of issuance of the notification under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 would continue to remain agricultural land and will not affect its status. Consequently, it cannot have any effect on the on going process of consolidation, which is being carried out under a valid piece of legislation, namely, Consolidation Act, the object of which is to provide for better cultivation of land within the estate concerned."
5. In view of the above, Ms. Arora seeks time to take instructions.
6. For the above purpose, re-notify on 11th October 2023.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2023/ak 1 Para 14, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 842 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15822/2022 Page 2 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2023 at 22:37:30