Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 256 (DEL)

RAJWANTI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

2010-02-10

SANJIV KHANNA

body2010
ORDER 1. The petitioner-Ms. Rajwanti had filed a revision petition under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 impugning two orders dated 26th February, 2002 and 17th March, 2005 passed by the Revenue Assistant. 2. By final order dated 26th February, 2002 it was directed that the land of the petitioner shall vest in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the Act. By order dated 17th March, 2005, application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 26th February, 2002 on the ground that she was not wrongly made a party, though she is the recorded bhumidar and in physical cultivatory possession of the land, was dismissed. 3. Financial Commissioner in the order dated 5th December, 2006 has held that he was not examining merits of the order dated 26th February, 2002 and the facts stated in the said order. Appeal against the order dated 17th March, 2005 has been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation, noticing that the said order was passed in the presence of the petitioner and the certified copy of the same was applied two months after it was passed, on 10th May, 2005. Financial Commissioner also observed that liberal interpretation is given to the clause “sufficient cause” to ensure that substantial justice to prevails over technical considerations, but in the present case the petitioner had failed to take due care that the revision petition was filed within time. 4. The petitioner is a villager and it is apparent that she is not well educated and can barely sign her name in hindi.The petitioner had also placed on record medical certificates of the doctor who was treating her from May 2005 till January 2006. The medical certificate mention the ailments the petitioner was suffering from. The respondents had not made any enquiry from the said doctor about the ailment of the petitioner or about her condition. Order under Section 81 of the Act has serious and adverse consequences. It is the case of the petitioner that she was/is a recorded bhumidar and was/is in actual physical possession of the land. It was also her case that the land was never used for non-agricultural purposes at any time and there is no violation of the Act and the Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that she was/is a recorded bhumidar and was/is in actual physical possession of the land. It was also her case that the land was never used for non-agricultural purposes at any time and there is no violation of the Act and the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated 17th March, 2005 by which the application for recall/setting aside of order dated 26th February, 2002 was dismissed. Order dated 17th March, 2005 does not record any reason for dismissing the application. It is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has drawn my attention to Annexure P-4 and submits that similar applications filed by other parties for recall of similar orders under Section 81 of the Act passed by the Revenue Assistant, all dated 26th February, 2002, were allowed but for some strange and undisclosed reason application of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 17th March, 2005. In fact on merit of the order dated 26th February, 2002, the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order dated 5th December, 2006 has observed:- “No doubt the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Khatouni Consolidation to assert her right over the suit land but in the absence of the order of the RA dt. 26.2.02 it is also not possible to determine whether the merits of her claim had been considered in that order or not. I am hence constrained to conclude that the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause, for the delay in filing this petition.” 5. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, order dated 5th December, 2006 is set aside and quashed. Application for condo nation of delay in filing of the revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision petition on merits. No costs.