RAJENDER SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
Section 22 - Preparation of record of rights
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1427 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1427 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15921 of 2013]
Rajender Singh …..Appellant
Versus
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Heard the parties at some length. Leave granted.
By the impugned order dated January 15, 2013 the High Court of Delhi has
dismissed L.P.A. No.39 of 2013 preferred by the appellant. As a
consequence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
13.12.2012 passed in W.P.(C)No.7124/2009 as well as order passed in review
from that order, dated 18.12.2012 stand affirmed.
The relevant facts leading to the aforesaid orders of the High Court need
to be noticed only in brief. Consolidation proceedings under The East
Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
[hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1948 Act’] commenced in Village Karala,
Delhi around 1975 and concluded in 1976. After about 23 years of closure
of consolidation proceedings, on 16.4.1999 the contesting respondents no.4
to 7 filed an application under Section 43A of the 1948 Act, seeking
allotment of land of Khasra No.168 on the ground that during the
consolidation proceedings their father late Rajender Singh was found to be
in possession over the area of 11 biswas of Scheme Khasra No.168 (old
Khasra No.703). Such possession was allegedly reflected in the Scheme of
Consolidation of the village and described as – “Scheme Kabizan”. The
consequent Case No.2/CO/1999 was initially dismissed by the Consolidation
Officer by order dated 11.05.1999 on the ground that consolidation
proceedings had been completed long back and hence the Consolidation
Officer had become functus officio. That order was however reversed by the
Financial Commissioner before whom the parties agreed that the
Consolidation Officer still had jurisdiction in respect of an application
invoking powers under Section 43A of the 1948 Act. After remand, the
Consolidation Officer commenced hearing of the case but it was disrupted on
account of a necessity to implead legal representatives of late Baljit
Singh on whom notices were ordered to be issued on 04.10.2004. The order
passed on 04.10.2004 did not indicate any further date for hearing. The
next order dated 18.10.2004 noted service of notices on the concerned legal
representatives of Baljit Singh. It also recorded presence of the
applicant Tej Ram along with his counsel. Evidently the appellant or his
counsel were not present on that date or on the next date which was fixed
as 16.11.2004. On the next further date, i.e., 24.12.2004, the
Consolidation Officer allowed the claim after noticing presence of only Tej
Ram. Inspite of the presence of the appellant or his counsel not
mentioned, at one place the order records that the counsel for respondent
had argued the case at length and had pressed for dismissal of the petition
because father of the claimants did not claim during his lifetime and
allegedly the claim was inappropriate at such late stage. The order also
records that as per revenue records the aforesaid land had been allotted in
the name of respondents no.3 to 7 as joint holding of the respondents
separated during consolidation proceedings. It was also noticed that the
encumbrances on the said land were only against the appellant Rajender
Singh son of Hoshiar Singh. As per order the revenue records were perused
along with the consolidation scheme leading to fresh allotment to Tej Ram
and others of new Khasra No.168 having area of 11 biswas on the basis of
“Scheme Kabizan”. In light of such allotment the Halka Patwari was
directed to make corresponding entries in the revenue records.
Against the order of Consolidation Officer allowing the claim of
respondents Tej Ram and others the appellant and the proforma respondents
filed a Revision Petition in the court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi
bearing Case No.47/2005-CA. The case of the appellant was that no
opportunity of hearing was given by the Consolidation Officer and the order
was passed by manipulating the records when in fact no notice of hearing
was ever issued after the decision to issue notice to legal representatives
of late Baljit Singh. The plea of possession being with the appellant and
the proforma respondents as also of inordinate delay of 23 years was also
raised. However, the revision case was dismissed on 03.02.2009 only on the
basis of a record showing Scheme Kabiz which was allegedly never challenged
by any body.
That order of the Financial Commissioner was impugned through a writ
petition first before the Single Judge and then also before the Division
Bench through L.P.A. as already noticed earlier. Since the appellant was
unsuccessful throughout, he has preferred the present appeal to raise three-
fold grievances. The first grievance is that in fact no opportunity of
hearing was afforded by the Consolidation Officer and as a consequence the
appellant could not place his case properly to show that there was no
occasion to know of the entry of “Scheme Kabiz” or to challenge the same
when it was never made known to affected persons by making allotment on its
basis. According to appellant the land remained under their possession
which was also reflected in the revised revenue records prepared pursuant
to the finalization of consolidation proceedings. The second grievance is
that no inquiry was made as to what was the nature of possession reflected
as Scheme Kabiz. According to learned counsel for the appellant, if the
possession was not through any method of encumbrance known to law but only
that of a rank trespasser, such possession could not have been made the
basis of allotment under Section 43A of the 1948 Act as has been done by
the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.2004. The last
grievance is that the Consolidation Officer as well as other authorities of
the High Court failed to appreciate that claim under Section 43A was made
after 23 years and such belated claim should not have been entertained or
allowed. In support of the second and third contentions noted above,
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of this
Court in the case of Mange Ram v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. (2003) 2
SCC 1.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has on the other hand taken
us through the Scheme of Consolidation as provided in the 1948 Act and has
highlighted that the grievance of the applicants before the Consolidation
Officer under Section 43A was within the scope of that Section and no
objection can be raised on account of delay of 23 years because once Scheme
Kabiz was recorded in favour of applicants, Section 26 of the 1948 Act
required such encumbrance by way of possession to be transferred and
attached to the holding or tenancy allotted under the scheme to the land
owner or the tenant who had suffered the encumbrance. Learned counsel for
the respondents made a further submission that on account of encumbrance
noted in the scheme, the respondents/applicants had continued in possession
and their grievance was only in respect of mistake or omission in
preparation of new record of rights prepared under Section 22 of the 1948
Act and such mistake or omission in the preparation of record of rights
cannot have material effect on the substantive rights of parties which they
continued to enjoy and once the mistake was realised by the authorities,
the exercise of power under Section 43A for correction of clerical or
arithmetical mistakes was appropriate and the High Court rightly did not
interfere with such correction of clerical errors. He reiterated that from
the wordings appearing in the order of the Consolidation Officer dated
24.12.2004 it is beyond any doubt that order was passed after hearing
learned counsel for the appellant. In support of his submissions based
upon Section 26, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment in the case
of Amar Singh, Jagram (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandgi (Dead) by LRs (1989) 1 SCC
308.
After hearing the parties and perusal of the relevant orders and material
on record, we are satisfied with the submission that the final order passed
by the Consolidation Officer on 24.12.2004 was without opportunity or
notice of hearing to the appellant and proforma respondents subsequent to
adjournment of the matter without further dates on 04.10.2004. The order
itself mentions only the presence of Tej Ram and not the appellant or any
one from his side. The order does not name any advocate from either of the
sides and the observation that ‘the counsel for the respondent has argued
the case at length’ may be a mistake or a casual observation based upon
inconclusive and ineffective hearing on earlier dates. On this ground
alone which has not been properly considered either by the revisional
authority or the High Court, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the
Consolidation Officer for fresh hearing and re-determination in accordance
with law.
However, it is deemed proper to clarify some relevant aspects of the case
as well as legal issues that must be kept in mind by the Consolidation
Officer for proper adjudication after remand. A perusal of the order
passed by the Financial Commissioner discloses that he was of the view that
the recording of “Scheme Kabiz” had attained finality as it was never
challenged. Such conclusion should not have been drawn without examining
whether this entry was duly published inviting any objections or in the
alternative whether such recording in a chart was further acted upon
leading to allocation or allotment of the land with the corresponding
encumbrances. So far as the case of Amar Singh (supra) is concerned, it
was not a case of exercise of power under Section 43A and the issue whether
the defendants of that case were tenants in respect of the lands in
question was found to be beyond any cavil and concluded by concurrent
finding of facts. In that case, since the power and jurisdiction of
Consolidation Officer under Section 26 was questioned, this Court held that
the officer had jurisdiction to define the portion of the land newly
allotted under the scheme and put the holder of the encumbrance in
possession of the corresponding part of the substituted holding allotted to
the land owner in lieu of his original holding.
In the case of Mange Ram (supra) this Court found that the appellant had
advanced claim of possession over a piece of land measuring 5 biswas on the
basis that his predecessor had trespassed over that land and had carried
out cultivation. The appellant had relied on a list of 1982 showing his
possession. The consolidation operation had been concluded and closed in
the year 1982 whereas application for being put in possession was filed by
the appellant after 11 years in 1993. In such circumstances this Court
held that a mere trespasser could not be treated as an encumbrancer as
envisaged under the 1948 Act. The Court further held that the appellant
must fail on account of long delay and laches of 11 years in approaching
the authorities for relief.
From the materials on record we could not find anything throwing light on
the nature of possession claimed by the contesting respondents which is
relevant for one of the propositions emerging from the judgment in the case
of Mange Ram (supra). In several of the pleadings the appellant has
claimed that they continued to enjoy allotment in their favour and
possession has remained with them over the 11 biswas of land in the
concerned Khasra. However, during arguments learned counsel for the
contesting respondents has made a counter claim that possession has
remained with the contesting respondents and therefore delay of 23 years
cannot be material. We expect the Consolidation Officer to keep these
aspects in mind while deciding the matter afresh. From the prayer made on
behalf of the contesting respondents before the Consolidation Officer it is
evident that they had not prayed for mere correction in the new record of
rights prepared at the instance of the Consolidation Officer under Section
22 of the 1948 Act, rather they had prayed for allotment or allocation
which was the relief granted by the Consolidation Officer who ordered for
revising the record of rights as a sequel to such allotment. However, if
even without the allotment or allocation made by the Consolidation Officer
through his order dated 24.12.2004, the applicants/contesting respondents
could continue with possession over the land in question and whether in
fact they continued to enjoy such possession, needs to be enquired into
because it will have an important bearing at least over the effect of delay
of 23 years. Lastly, the Consolidation Officer should keep in mind that
although it has jurisdiction to look into the claim under Section 43A of
the 1948 Act, such jurisdiction can be exercised only to correct errors
which are clerical or arithmetical in nature. The mere fact that the
appellant conceded to jurisdiction under Section 43A leading to an order of
remand will not have the effect of enlarging such jurisdiction beyond what
is prescribed by the law.
The aforesaid clarifications are relevant in the facts of the case to
ensure that no further unnecessary time is wasted in deciding the real
controversy. Hence while setting aside the impugned orders of the High
Court and also the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities on or
after 24.12.2004, we remand the matter to the Consolidation Officer for re-
hearing the parties and fresh determination within six months, in
accordance with law keeping in mind the legal principles and other relevant
observations recorded earlier in this order as guidelines. It is also made
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of
either parties.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent but without any order as to
costs.
…………………………………….J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
……………………………………..J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
New Delhi.
February 16, 2016.
-----------------------
10
For the Latest Updates
Join Now