PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was the recorded bhoomidar of lands bearing Rect. No. 13 kila No. 24 (3-0), 25 (4-16), Rect. No. 14 Kila No. 21 (4-16), Rect. No. 26 Kila No. 3 (2- 9), 4 (4-16), 5 (4-16), 6 (4-16) and 7 (4-16) of Village Kulakpur, Delhi.

( 2 ) CLAIMING to be in adverse cultivatory possession for a period of 3 continuous years prior to 23. 3. 1990, petitioner filed a petition under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 praying that since the period within which the respondent No. 1 could eject him from the land had expired, petitioner was entitled to be declared as bhoomidar of the land in question.

( 3 ) AFTER attempting to serve the respondent by ordinary process and registered post and on noticing that service could not be effected, Revenue assistant directed service of the respondent by publication. After publication was effected, vide order dated 21. 8. 1990, respondent was proceeded ex-parte.

( 4 ) PETITIONER led ex-parte evidence. Vide order dated 25. 9. 1990, Revenue assistant declared the petitioner to be the bhoomidar of the land in question.

( 5 ) ON 28. 12. 1994, respondent No. 1 moved an application under Appexdix VI para 14 of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 stating that he was wrongly proceeded ex- parte. That he came to know of the order dated 215. 9. 1991 declaring the petitioner to be the bhoomidar on 22. 12. 1994 when he received a copy of the khata khatoni.

( 6 ) REVENUE Assistant, vide order dated 22. 10. 1999, rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable. He held that remedy of respondent No. 1 was to challenge the order by way of appeal.

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the order dated 25. 9. 1991. In the said appeal, order dated 22. 10. 1999 was also questioned.

( 8 ) VIDE order dated 6. 10. 2004, appeal was allowed. Order dated 25. 9. 1991 and 22. 10. 1999 were set aside.

( 9 ) LEARNED appellate Court held that the order of publication followed only one attempt to serve notice upon the respondent, which attempt failed, that was not enough to record a finding that the respondent No. 1 could not be served by ordinary process. It was accordingly held that the order directing service by publication was faulty. Consequence was that it was held the order proceeding ex-parte against respondent No. 1 had to be set aside. Accordingly, the ex-parte decree was set aside.

( 10 ) PETITIONER preferred revision petition against the order dated 6. 10. 2004 passed in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1.

( 11 ) LEARNED Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition being case No. 292/04-CA, vide his order dated 18. 11. 2004

( 12 ) PETITION challenges the order dated 18. 11. 2004 passed by the learned financial Commissioner as also the order dated 6. 10. 2004 passed by the First appellate Court.

( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondent No. 1 was aware of the entire proceedings. Counsel urged that the fact that respondent no. 1 was aware of the proceedings and the order dated 25. 9. 1991 was evidenced from the fact that on 31. 3. 1992, much after order dated 25. 9. 1991 was passed, respondent No. 1 sold his remaining land comprised in Khasra No. 13/16 (4-16) in village Kulakpur to one Jeet Ram. That after executing the sale deeds, mutation was effected in the name of Jeet Ram. That for submitting the mutation application, certified copy of the khata khatoni was appended with the application. The said khata khatoni issued to respondent No. 1 recorded the fact that vide order dated 25. 9. 1991 petitioner was declared as the bhoomidar of the lands in question.

( 14 ) ADDITIONALLY counsel urged that one Tara Chand had likewise instituted proceedings against the respondent in respect of land comprised in khasra No. 13/13 (3-9) Village Kulakpur. In the said proceedings, even Tara chand claimed to be in adverse cultivatory possession. He sought declaration of bhoomidari rights in his favour. The said application was decided al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document