Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.4. In his order dated 23.04.2010, the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon noted that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) cum District Revenue Officer, Gurgaon had reported that the Jama Bandi, known as Parat Sarkar, and kept in Sadar Record Room, showed land of 9190 Bigha 9 Bishwa in the revenue estate of Rojka Gujar of which 1379 Bigha 19 Bishwa was Banjar Kadim and 7810 Bigha 10 Bishwa was Gair Mumkin Pahar. As against this, the Jama Bandi, known as Parat Partwar, and available with the Patwari, showed land of 9895 Bigha 1 Bishwa, which was excess by 847 Bigha 4 Bishwa. The Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon also noted that the revenue estate of Rojka Gujar was not inhabited, and that there were 'only two types of land', namely, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin Pahar, and clearly there were 'interpolations in the record of rights' (Jama Bandit. He stated: 'This type of fraud is never heard in the revenue administration. The Revenue Officers such as Circle Revenue Officers and Patwaris are the custodian of the case, the Revenue Officers have acted not as a custodian of record of rights but they have misused their position by incorporating the unlawful and illegal entries in the Jama Bandi, i.e, record of rights.' He also noted: 'While preparing the scheme of consolidation it has been mentioned at sr no. 1 of the scheme of consolidation that in order to nullify the effect of excess area measuring 874 Bigha 4 Bishwa, a proportionate cut will be imposed on all the owners. By doing so the Consolidation officer has tried to legalise the fraudulent owners who have become owners as a result of illegal entries. It is also possible that on the basis of illegal entries many transactions by way of sale deeds might have occurred and on the basis of such illegal transactions their names might Page | 8 have been included in the record of rights. If these fraudulent owners are not weeded out, then they would become the owners if this scheme of consolidation is implemented.' Finally, the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon concluded that the Settlement Officer, Gurgaon was being directed to amend the scheme of consolidation such that • the consolidation should be done only in respect of the actual area as per Parat Sarkar kept in Sadar Record Room, excluding the excess area interpolated by fraud;

7.6. It is also relevant that the finding of the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon

- that Jama Bandi (Parat Patwar) was not reliable and did not match with the Jama Bandi (Parat Sarkar) kept in the Sadar Record Room and that the Revenue Officers had incorporated unlawful and illegal entries in the record of rights (Jama Bandi-Parat Patwar) - was made in April, 2010 itself. Therefore, in view of the noting and observations contained in the orders of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon and the Page | 9 letter of the Tehsildar, Sohna - that documented the nature of land at village Rojka Gujar as rocky (Gair Mumkin Pahar) and barren (Banjar Kadim); use of these lands for common purposes only; unidentifiable shares making physical possession by owners impossible; and unlawful and illegal entries in the record of rights (Jama Bandi) incorporated by revenue officers while carrying out the process of consolidation - the documents relied by the appellant are untrustworthy. Therefore, no credence can be placed on the Khasra Girdwari, Chak bandi and mutation documents filed by the appellant as 'evidences' in the paper book.

4. In light of the aforesaid, it is thus, prayed that all 17 appeals so filed by assessee since involves consideration of identical issues and in view of our aforesaid submissions the appeal of the assessee-appellant be allowed and relief be granted to the assessee-appellant.
7.4. Submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- Ld.CIT DR vehemently opposed the submissions of the assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below.

Ld.CIT DR submitted that so far the question of agricultural land is concerned, the Land Revenue authorities have stated in response to the letters issued by the Assessing Officer that the land in question is a barren land and no agricultural activity was permissible on the land. Further, Ld.CIT DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has categorically recorded the findings of Commissioner who is competent authority under land revenue authorities of the concerned State. It has been categorically held that no consolidation proceedings were completed. Ld.CIT DR further submitted that as per order dated 23.04.2010, the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon recorded that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) cum District Revenue Officer, Gurgaon had reported that the Jama Bandi, known as Parat Sarkar, and kept in Sadar Record Room, showed land of 9190 Bigha 9 Bishwa in the revenue estate of Rojka Gujar of which 1379 Bigha 19 Bishwa was Banjar Kadim and 7810 Bigha 10 Bishwa was Gair Mumkin Pahar. As against this, the Jama Bandi, known as Parat Partwar and available with the Patwari, showed land of 9895 Bigha 1 Bishwa, which was excess by 847 Bigha 4 Bishwa. Ld.CIT DR further pointed out that Ld.CIT(A) had recorded the finding of the Divisional Commissioner who had stated that there were only two types of land namely, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin Pahar, and there was "interpolations in Page | 31 the record of rights" (Jama Bandi). Ld.CIT DR submitted that as per the letter of Tehsildar, Sohna to the Additional DIT (Inv.), Delhi dated 16.03.2011, it was stated that following the discovery of discrepancies, the process of consolidation (chak bandi) had been stopped in respect of the lands at Village Rojka Gujar on the orders of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, it was further stated that the lands were either Gair Mumkin Pahar or Banjar Kadim. Therefore, the process of consolidation was abandoned. Ld.CIT DR in sum and substance relied on the finding of the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A). Further, Ld.CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) considered the Circular issued by the State Government of Haryana dated 11.12.1970. It was stated that vide the said notification, Forest Department had prohibited agricultural operations in the land in question.