S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition challenges an order dated 18. 4. 2001 passed by the Revenue assistant under Sec. 11 and 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLRA) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for declaration of bhumidari rights regarding certain agricultural land situated in village Shakarpur. The petition also challenges the order dated 29. 10. 2001 passed by the Deputy commissioner (South-west District), New Delhi dismissing the petitioner's appeal and the order dated 14. 2. 2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that at the time of the commencement of the DLRA, one Smt. Chameli Devi, the widow of late shri Munshi was declared bhumidar of half the share of the aforementioned land on the basis of the entries in the Revenue records. The petitioner and Shri Devi singh were also declared bhumidars in respect of 1/4th share of the aforementioned land. The land in question originally belonged to one Shri Deena who had two sons namely Shri Molad and Shri Munsh. While the petitioner Shri mangtu and Shri Devi Singh are grandsons of Shri Molad, Smt. Chameli Devi is the widow of Shri Munsh.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the property in question was a Hindu undivided Family property (HUF) and since she was not a coparcener Smt. Chameli devi's name could not have been entered in the Revenue records as a co-owner. The petitioner also claimed bhumidari rights under Sec. 85 of the DLRA on the basis of exclusive physical cultivatory possession since 1974. The said application was resisted by Smt. Chameli Devi on the ground that the petitioner here was never in possession of the land in question. He had never challenged the entry made in the Revenue record acknowledging Smt. Chameli Devi as bhumidar/co-owner since 1954 and the present petition was filed only in 1997. e. after a gap of 43 years. It is submitted that for correction of an erroneous entry, the remedy lay under Rule 8 (4) of the Delhi Land Reforms rules, 1954 (DLR Rules ).

( 4 ) BY his order dated 18. 4. 2001, the Revenue Assistant dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The Revenue Assistant rejected the plea of the petitioner that there was no limitation for filing a suit to challenge entries of bhumidari in the Revenue record and observed that if such a plea of unlimited time for filing of a petition under Sec. 11 were permitted 'it would create chaos'. On the plea of Section 85 DLRA, it was held that the petitioner failed to prove exclusive possession. Finally, it was observed that after coming into force of dlra, the concept of coparcenary under the Hindu Law was no longer applicable to the land in question. It was observed that the concept of proprietorship or coparcenary under the Hindu Law no longer survived after the enactment of DLRA.

( 5 ) WHILE dismissing the petitioner's appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (South-west District), observed that the petitioner here was one of the parties who was declared bhumidar at the time the DLRA came into force. If it was held that if the entries in the declaration were not correct, the petitioner could have moved to the Revenue Assistant in terms of Rule 8 (4) of the Rules within two months thereafter. On the other hand, the petitioner did nothing for over 40 years. Accordingly, he held that the doctrines of estoppel and waiver would get attracted and no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The third impugned order dated 14. 2. 2006 of the Finance Commissioner dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the decision of the Revenue Assistant.

( 6 ) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Vats, learned counsel, submits that entry 4 in the Schedule to the DLRA indicates that there is no limitation for filing a petition under Section 11 DLRA for declaration of bhumidari rights. Therefore, the Revenue Assistant erred in rejecting th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document