SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1. Mr. Narain Singh and Mr. Som Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, for short) claim that they have purchased 2 bighas 18 biswas and 2 bighas of land, respectively in khasra No. 6/19/2 (min) village Samepur, Delhi vide two separate sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 executed by one Mr. Maman Singh. The said Mr. Maman Singh is father of Mr. Som Dutt. After purchase of land vide sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989, the petitioners had applied for mutation under the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Act). Mr. Maman Singh was a recorded bhumidar of the land till sale deeds were made. Mutation entries were allowed in favour of the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 10th February, 1995 passed by the Financial Commissioner, the mutation entries have been cancelled.

Impugned Order

2. The Financial Commissioner, has held, that the aforesaid land consisting of 4 bighas and 18 biswas was subject matter of proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act, for short) and was ordered to be vested in the Gaon Sabha by order passed by SDM/Revenue Assistant dated 7th February, 1984 and, therefore, mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 are liable to be set aside. Financial Commissioner has further held that Mr. Maman Singh had earlier executed sale deeds dated 9th March, 1970 in favour of one Mr. Bhai Ram and the said Mr. Maman Singh had also made a statement before Mr. Nathu Singh, Revenue Assistant in Case No. 62/RA/81 that the land in question had never been cultivated by him. Apart from these reasons, the Financial Commissioner has held that sale of land by Mr. Maman Singh to the petitioners by two sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 had resulted in violation of Section 33 of the Reforms Act as Mr. Maman Singh was left with uneconomic holding in form of land in extended abadi located in khasra No.23/18/2 measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas and, therefore, consequences as stipulated in Section 42 of the Reforms Act would follow. In these circumstances, mutation entries made under the Revenue Act in favour of the petitioners were directed to be cancelled with a direction that the land would vest with the Gaon Sabha/Union of India. The Financial Commissioner also observed that once mutations in favour of the petitioners were held to be invalid, then the petition under Section 85 of the Reforms Act filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Mohinder Singh and Mr.Rajinder Singh, against the petitioners was also not maintainable. In these circumstances, the petition filed by private respondents herein viz. respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was held to be incompetent and dismissed.

Litigations

3. There have been three proceedings amongst the parties. Two proceedings were before the authorities under the Revenue and the Reforms Act. The petitioners have also filed a civil suit.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in November, 1989 filed a petition under Section 85 of the Reforms Act against the petitioners. This petition was subsequently amended. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that they were in possession of the land for a period of more than three years and the recorded bhumidars had failed to eject them and accordingly they should be declared bhumidars. It was stated that Mr. Maman Singh was wrongly recorded as a bhumidar of the land till 4th May, 1989 and thereafter the petitioners have been wrongly recorded as bhumidars.

5. Notice on this petition was issued to the petitioners who had entered appearance. The said petition was dismissed by an ex parte order dated 4th June, 1990. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they were never served with notice for the hearing fixed on 4th June, 1990 and the case in fact had been adjourned to 25th June, 1990. I have examined the order passed by the Revenue Assistant on 4th June, 1990. The said order is a non-speaking and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document