C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2762/ 81,2763/81,2764/81,2765/81,2766/81 and 2767/81 (Chiranji Lal Gupta and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner and Ors.), as common questions arise for consideration. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 10/11/1981 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 arc landowners of village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The consolidation of holdings took place in the village under the provisions of the Act which started in the year 1975. A scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer and was published under Section 19 of the Act on 16/05/1976. The said scheme was confirmed by the Settlement Officer under Section 20 on 17/06/1976. Respondents 4 to 7 made a demand that they be given 2 Bighas of land each in the Phimi while the petitioners made demand for one Bigha. It is next contended that in the meantime the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 was enacted by Parliament which imposed restrictions on holding of vacant lands in an urban area. In view of the said Act, respondents 4 to 7 made an application that they be allotted only one Bigha plot each. The petitioners, however, prayed that they may be allotted a plot of 9 Bighas 16 Biswas in the same Khasra No. 839 which was occupied by them prior to consolidation and the petitioners had their tubewell and houses on the said land. Most of other landowners in the village also revised their demands for plots. Respondents 4 to 7 submitted their applications and translated copies of the sameare filed as Annexures a and b respectively. Copy of the application made by respondents 4 to 7 read as follows: "scheme No. 266/co Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi 53 to 56 To The Consolidation Officer, Tis Hazari, Delhi Sir,. It is well-known that consolidation proceedings have been completed in our village Tikri Kalan and plots for residential purposes are still to be allotted. Therefore, a plot of 4 bighas be allotted to us (Shri Azad Singh, Dharam Singh, Ram Chander, Ram Kishan) a plot of 4 bighas be allotted in the north near their Khasra No. 796. It is well-known that consolidation proceedings have been completed in our village Tikri Kalan and plots for residential purposes are still to be allotted. Therefore, a plot of 4 bighas be allotted to us (Shri Azad Singh, Dharam Singh, Ram Chander, Ram Kishan) a plot of 4 bighas be allotted in the north near their Khasra No. 796. Applicants" COPY of the application made by the petitioners reads as follows: "copy of the extract of Scheme of Consolidation village Tikri Kalan Hadbast No. 120 Tehsil and District Delhi No Scheme Name of village Date of Decision 266/co Tikri Kalan 16. 5. 1976 Copy of the application by Chiranji Lal Gupta and Narain Dass of village Tikri Kalan Tehsil and District Delhi. To The Consolidation Officer, Tis Hazari, Delhi Sir, Subject: The allotment of plot for 9 bighas 16 biswas in Khasra No. 839 It is submitted that we may be allotted 9 bighas 16 biswas of plot in our Tubewell in Khasra No. 839. Thanking you Yours faithfully, sd/-Chiranji Lal Gupta sd/-Narain Dass"the Scheme of Consolidation dated 16/05/1976 has been filed as Annexure j to the writ petition and reads as follows: "copy of Extract of the Scheme Village Tikri Kalan Habast No. 120 Tehsil and District, Delhi No. of Scheme Name of village Date of Decision 266/co Tikri Kalan 16. 5. 1976 Way to partition inside Phimi For the extension of Abadi inside Phirni, for landowners and landless, there will be 668 Bighas 14 Biswas area. The area included in phirni will be valued at 32 Annas and the houses which are already in phirni will be measured and will be kept intact according to their situation. The list of the same after due confirmation has been attached to the scheme. The area of the landowners inside phirni will be accounted for in their khatas and the landless will be kept under gram-sabha. And after partition the area which will be left over will be allotted to the landowners in lieu of their pre-consolidation land. The area will be allotted to the landowners and landless according to their haermohar. The list confirmed according to their haermohar has been attached to the scheme. Every plot will be linked with 2 gatha wide path. During the partition the Kamibesi of 2 biswas will not be considered. Every landless will be given 2 biswas plot. The area will be allotted to the landowners and landless according to their haermohar. The list confirmed according to their haermohar has been attached to the scheme. Every plot will be linked with 2 gatha wide path. During the partition the Kamibesi of 2 biswas will not be considered. Every landless will be given 2 biswas plot. The confirmed list has been attached to the scheme. The path which lead to abadi will be put upto the phirni. Landowners with the demand of 1 bigha or less, efforts will be made to allot them plot with their houses or ghair. Landowners who have their demand of more than one bigha will be allotted plot adjacent to along with their houses or ghair, the remaining area will be allotted along with the phimi. The area of tube-well or well of a landowner will be allotted there. The electric tube-well of the landowners which come inside phirni, efforts will be made to allot them 2 killas in lieu thereof outside phimi without considering their centre, 1 ghata wide path will be provided from tube-well to chak which will be included in their khatas. sd/-C. O. 16. 5. 1976" ( 3 ) THE Consolidation Officer, Delhi took proceedings under Section21 (1) of the Act and decided the re-partition proceedings on 21/10/1978 which may be reproduced as under: "in the Court of Consolidation Officer, Delhi Suitno. 41date21. 10. 1978 Proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the Consolidation Act village Tikri Kalan Today as per the programme I reached village Tikri Kalan chopal. It was informed earlier by beat of drum according to the procedure. The members of the Advisory Committee, landowners and landless are present. They wereexplained me partition on shizra. The consolidation booklets were already supplied to the landowners. The demarcation have also been made. The landowners having their objections against allotment of plots inside phirni can file objections within 15 days to C. O. in Room No. 25, Tis Hazari, Delhi. After that period, they will not be heard A copy of the notice was affixed at chopal. One copy was got registered in the proceeding book of the consolidation. sd/-Patwari in urdu sd/- CO. After that period, they will not be heard A copy of the notice was affixed at chopal. One copy was got registered in the proceeding book of the consolidation. sd/-Patwari in urdu sd/- CO. Delhi"respondents 4 to 7 did not take any action as a result of the allotment in favour of various landonwers as referred to above but filed an application on 18/06/1981 asking for allotment of more land on which an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer and translated copy of the same read as follows: "order As the proceedings under Section 21 (2) have been completed, as such I am not competent to make further change. So the application is filed. Applicants are present. They are directed t6 seek their remedy in the proper Court, if they so desire. "the respondents did not take recourse to the right of appeal under Section 21 (3) of the Act and (sic.) the Financial Commissioner by filing revisions under Section 42 of the Act. The revisions were accepted by order dated 10/11/1981. The operative portion as contained in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 are reproduced as under: "6. On going through the relevant file on the subject, I find that they contending of the learned Counsel for the respondents is not borne out. Rather it appears to be misconceived. The learned Counsel does not seem to have properly gone through the file in question. It is a fact that the Assistant Consolidation Officer in his report dated 11. 5. 1977 has recorded that the right- holder of the village had moved applications for revising their demands for residential plots at the commencement of the Ceiling Act and that as per the revised demands the area earmarked for the extended phirni was to be reduced. A list containing the re-called revised demands of the rightholders was also attached with the said report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed for amendment of the phirni accordingly. The matter did not end here. There is subsequent report made by the same Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 27. 5. 1977 in continuation of the earlier report. In the latter report it has been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer that he visited the village on 26. 5. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed for amendment of the phirni accordingly. The matter did not end here. There is subsequent report made by the same Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 27. 5. 1977 in continuation of the earlier report. In the latter report it has been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer that he visited the village on 26. 5. 1977 contacted the villagers, bhumidars and nonbiswadara in general gathering and they agreed that the area of phirni may not be reduced, the approved phirni be kept intact and the repartition of plots be started at an early date. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had Suggested that in view of the above latter development there was no necessity to amend the phirni. Orders for allotment repartition of plots were sought for. The file was submitted to the Consolidation Officer, who concurred with the Assistant Consolidation Officer and submitted the papers to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) stating that no action was called for and the application may be filed. The learned Settlement Officer remarked as under: in view of the facts stated above, the action proposed is appropriate. sd/-S. O. 1. 6. 1977" IT is gathered from a combined reading of the entire proceedings contained in the file that the ultimate result approved by the learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was to approve the report of the Consolidation Officer for dropping the proposal to amend the phirni. It is, therefore, not appropriate to stress that the demands were revised and the phirni was amended. Otherwise also it is a fact that the amendment cannot take place in such a manner. It requires the procedure for framing and confirmation of the scheme to be followed. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the demands of the petitioners were not revised regardless the fact that they had moved applications for the same and the petitioners are entitled to be allotted residential plots in accordance with their original demands contained in the confirmed scheme. 7. As a result of my above decision, the second legal ground raised on behalf of the contesting respondents is also not available to them. The last averment that the respondents had been given the surplus area which remained unallotted, as it was their pre-consolidation land, becomes, untenable. 7. As a result of my above decision, the second legal ground raised on behalf of the contesting respondents is also not available to them. The last averment that the respondents had been given the surplus area which remained unallotted, as it was their pre-consolidation land, becomes, untenable. Since the petitioners are to be allotted more land as per their original demands in view of my above decisions, there will be no surplus or unallotted land if the demands of the petitioners are made good. 8. In view of what had been discussed above, I accept these revision petitions and remand the cases to the Consolidation Officer with the directions that the deficiency of the petitioners in allotment of residential plots as per their original demands shall appropriately be made good: It is further directed that the respondents shall also be allowed to retain plots in accordance with the demands and the provisions of the scheme. "the petitioners felt aggrieved by the above findings and have filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. ( 4 ) THE main contention which has been raised is that the Financial Commis sioner is not entitled in law to re-consider the matter after a lapse of more than 3 years as all the respective parties have come in possession of their lands and it will cause fragmentation and dislocation if their possession is now disturbed. It will be necessary to reproduce certain provisions of law to decide the question raised in these petitions. Section 19 of the Act relates to publication of Draft Scheme and Section 20 deals with confirmation of the scheme. These provisions read as follows: "19. Publication of draft scheme (1) When the draft scheme of consolidation is ready for publication, the Consolidation Officer shall publish it in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. Any person likely to be affected by such scheme, shall, within thirty days of the date of such publication, communicate in writing to the Consolidation Officer any objections relating to the scheme. The Consolidation Officer shall, after considering the objections, if any, received, submit the scheme with such amendments as he considers to be necessary, together with his remarks on the objections, to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). 20. The Consolidation Officer shall, after considering the objections, if any, received, submit the scheme with such amendments as he considers to be necessary, together with his remarks on the objections, to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). 20. Confirmation of scheme (1) The Chief Commissioner may by notification appoint one or more persons to be Settlement Officers (Consolidation) and, by like notification, specify the area in which each such officer shall have jurisdiction. The Consolidation Officers in the area under the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall be subordinate to him subject to any conditions which may be prescribed. (2) If no objections are received to the draft scheme published under Subsection (1) of Section 19 and also if no written or oral objections to the draft scheme are received under Sub-section (3) by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), he shall confirm the scheme. (3) If any objections are received to the draft scheme published under Subsection (1) of Section 19 or if any written or oral objections are received by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the confirmation of the draft scheme by him, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may after taking the objections into consideration together with the remarks thereon of the Consolidation Officer and also after considering the written or oral objections, either confirm the scheme with or without modifications, or refuse to confirm it. In case of such refusal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall return the draft scheme, with such direction as may be necessary, to the Consolidation Officer, for reconsideration and resubmission. (4) Upon the confirmation of the scheme under Sub-section (2) or (3) the scheme as confirmed shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. " ( 5 ) SECTION 21 of the Act provides for filing of objections after re-partition is done and any person aggrieved by the same may file objections within 15 days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer and similarly a right of appeal is provided by Sub-section (3) as well as further right of appeal before the Financial Commissioner is provided in Sub-section (4) of the Act. This Section reads as follows: "21. This Section reads as follows: "21. Repartition (1) The Consolidation Officer shall after obtaining the advice of the landowners of the estate or estates concerned, carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under Section 20, and the boundaries of the holdings is demarcated shall be shown on the shajra which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. (2) Any person aggrieved by the repartition may file a written objection within fifteen days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer who shall after hearing the objector pass such orders as he considers proper confirming or modifying the repartition. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer (Consolidation) under Sub-section (2) may within one month of that order file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who shall after hearing the appellant pass such order as he considers proper. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sub-section (3) may within sixty days of that order appeal to the Chief Commissioner. The order of the Chief Commissioner on such appeal, and subject only to such order, the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sub-section (3) or, if the order of the Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (2) was not appealed against, such order of the Consolidation Officer, shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court. (5) The Appellate Authority may entertain an appeal under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. " ( 6 ) THE admitted facts are that respondents 4 to 7 on their own volition asked for reduction of their holdings as will be indicated from the communication addressed to the Consolidation Officer which is already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. The re-partition proceedings have already been finalised and respondents 4 to 7 did not take any action till after the expiry of period of about 3 years when an application was made before the Consolidation Officer who disposed of the same on 4/07/1981. The respondents did not take recourse to any right of appeal and straightaway approached the Financial Commissioner who passed the impugned order. The respondents did not take recourse to any right of appeal and straightaway approached the Financial Commissioner who passed the impugned order. ( 7 ) THE import of the judgments cited before the learned Financial Commissioner has not been correctly analysed. In Rattan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. , AIR 1981 SC 1006 , the Court clearly held that the delay in raising objections to the scheme can prove fatal as some finality is to be attached to the scheme which has been proved and confirmed. This is a short judgment and it may be reproduced as below: "this is an appeal from an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants before us challenging the scheme of consolidation of holdings relating to village Bhawanipur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 11/02/1964. In April, 1966 it was revoked by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, but the revocation was set aside by the High Court in December, 1967 on a writ petition made by 59 other landholders of the village. All these years, the appellants did not raise any objection to the scheme. It was only in October, 1968 that they moved this Court challenging the scheme but the writ petition which they filed was withdrawn and in December, 1968, they filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine as stated earlier. That the appellants did not question the validity of the scheme framed in 1964, until October, 1968, has already been stated. They did not also implead in their writ petition in High Court the other landholders who were likely to be affected in case this scheme was disturbed. For these reasons, we think that the High Courtwas justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ". They did not also implead in their writ petition in High Court the other landholders who were likely to be affected in case this scheme was disturbed. For these reasons, we think that the High Courtwas justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ". Similarly it has been held in Ram Nath v. Financial Commissioner, 1983 0 Rajlr 739, that once an order of consolidation is made on re-partition, the Consolidation Officer cannot disturb it except when written objections are made within 15 days or an order is reversed on appeal to Settlement Officer or upon further appeal to Financial Commissioner under Sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 of the Act, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment read as follows: "8. It would thus appear that after repartition persons entitled to the possession of the land allotted on repartition have to be put into actual and physical possession. They have to be given possession of the land allotted to them under the repartition scheme. After this is done the scheme shall be deemed to have come into force. Possession of the allottees thereafter cannot be disturbed except under the specified circumstances enumerated in the section. It is not the case of Ram Saroop that this change was ordered by the C. O. under any of the provisions enumerated in Section 24. Oviously no objection had been filed under Section 21. This is the admitted case of the parties because repartition took place as long ago as 1976. The dispute arose only in 1981. So no change was ordered in pursuance of any of the provisions of Section 21. Under Section 36 also the power has not been exercised. If there is any provision to which Ram Saroop can resort it is only Section 42 of the Act. 9. Now Section 42 gives suo motu power to the Chief Commissioner (now the F. C.), to call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying himself to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared, or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act. 9. Now Section 42 gives suo motu power to the Chief Commissioner (now the F. C.), to call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying himself to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared, or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act. Obviously this power could not have been exercised by the C. O. He was not the F. C. The power appertains only to the F. C. ana not to the C. O. In my opinion, the C. O. had no power to make the impugned order. The question of deficiency arose on remand to the C. O. by Mr. Shaiza. The C. O. thought that the matter had been remanded to him for making up the deficiency of Ram Saroop which had accrued on account of the restoration of Killa Nos. 47/12 and 47/19 to Ram Nath. But the question arises; Is there any deficiency the land of Ram Saroop ? If there was any deficiency in the question ought to have been raised under Section 21 at the time of repartition. This is what Section 21 says. Ram Saroop if he was aggrieved by the repartition on the ground that there was any deficiency or that he had not been allotted land according to his demand or share ought to have agitated the question of deficiency within 15 days of the publication of the scheme of repartition. This was never done. What was done subsequently by the orders of the C. O. dated 31. 1. 1981 and 10. 3. 1981 was the subject-matter of revision before Mr. Shaiza. He decided that it was not open to the C. O. to make the order of withdrawal of land from Ram Nath. That being his view, and I think the right view on this subject, the question of deficiency did not arise. On the short ground that the C. O. had no power to make up the deficiency by taking Ram Nath s land and by giving it to Ram Saroop, this case can be decided in favour of Ram Nath. This was robbing Peter to pay Paul for no rhyme or reason. On the short ground that the C. O. had no power to make up the deficiency by taking Ram Nath s land and by giving it to Ram Saroop, this case can be decided in favour of Ram Nath. This was robbing Peter to pay Paul for no rhyme or reason. " ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel has also raised the plea of estoppel on the basis of the law as laid down by the judgments reported as Anantam Veeraju and Others v. Valluri Venkayya @ Venkamma (Died) and Anr. , AIR 1960 AP 222 ; and Union of India v. Bharat Fire and General Insurance Ltd. New Delhi, AIR 1961 Pandh 157, to support the proposition that once having accepted the land on repartition on the basis of the revised demand, respondents 4 to 7 cannot now reopen the whole issue which will affect large number of landowners who have been allotted lands on the basis of the scheme as framed. ( 9 ) THE fact, however, remains that the respondents 4 to 7 on their own asked for their holdings to be reduced and did not agitate the matter for a period of three years and only approached the Consolidation Officer thereafter as well as the Financial Commissioner belatedly. There is also force in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the revised scheme in pursuance to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner will dislocate the petitioners as well as many others which is notthe purpose behind framing of the Act i. e. , the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The petitioners during the pendency of these petitions moved applications C. M. Nos. 1929/1995 (CWP No. 2762/81), 1900/1995 (CWP No. 2763/1981), 1901/1995 (CWP No. 2764/1981), 1902/1995 (CWP No. 2765/1981), 1903/1995 (CWP No. 2766/1981) and 1898/1995 (CWP No. 2767/1981), to show that in case the revised repartition is conducted the petitioners will be allotted land in different directions which will go against the purpose and spirit behind the enactment as the petitioners will be allotted land at nine different places. The entire matter will be reopened as number of other land owners have raised enhanced demands. This procedure is not permissible in law as respondents chose to revise their demands and were allotted in pursuance to the same. The entire matter will be reopened as number of other land owners have raised enhanced demands. This procedure is not permissible in law as respondents chose to revise their demands and were allotted in pursuance to the same. ( 10 ) IN view of the above facts and the settled position of law the order dated 10/11/1981 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi is set aside. The present petitions are allowed and Rule is made absolute. The possession of the petitioners must remain undisturbed as is described in Section 24 of the Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs.