The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 6(k) of Prevention of Fragmentation Rules, emphasizing the requirement for the allottee to be a resident of the village for the last twenty years.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order of 26th June, 2009 wherein the finding returned is as under :-

“In fact, as per the Scheme, for allotment of the land within the Lal Dora, there is a provision that the person should be the resident of the Village for more than 20 years and the respondent No.5 is not the resident of the Village and as such he is not entitled for allotment of any land. In lieu of withdrawal, he can be easily allotted agricultural land. After all, he cannot be given any benefit of allotment of the land within the Lal Dora. If he is being given the benefit of allotment of the land within the Lal Dora then it will amount to violating the Scheme or with the gazette notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which is the guiding principle for allotment of the land to the persons, who are residents of the Village for more than 20 years or so.”

2. The stand of petitioner, as noticed in the impugned order, is as under:-

“That the basic claim of Petitioners is based on the provisions of consolidation Scheme and the same has been admitted during the course of arguments by the counsels for the respondents. It is specific submission of the petitioners that his pre-consolidation land bearing Khasra No.29/8/2 (1-14) was included within the extended Lal Dora of the Village during the process of reparation as per the Scheme and there is a provision in the Scheme that the land which has been included within the Lal Dora will be allotted to the persons, who are the owners of the said land before consolidation. Now it is on the basis of this provision of the Scheme, the Petitioners are claiming allotment of this land, being their preferential right thereupon.”

3. The challenge to the impugned order by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that order of 11th November, 2004, which was assailed by third respondent herein, did not pertain to subject land i.e. Khasra No.106/359/2 of village Khera Kalan. Petitioner’s counsel submits that order of 11th November, 2004 was in respect of inter se dispute between third respondent and one –Jagat Singh. It is submitted that 08 biswas of land out of subject land was withdrawn from the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and was allotted to Jagat Singh and third respondent herein was allotted 08 biswas of land, after withdrawing it from Jagat Singh and one bigha in Plot No.106/359/2 was never the subject matter of consideration in the order of 11th November, 2004 and therefore, the Financial Commissioner, Delhi was not justified in holding that in lieu of withdrawal of subject plot from petitioner, he can be easily allotted agricultural land.

4. It is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that requirement of being a resident of village for more than twenty years would not apply to the case of petitioner, as he had stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar, who was predecessor-in-interest of petitioner in relation to the subject plot. It is further submitted by petitioner’s counsel that third respondent had challenged consolidation proceedings in the year 2001 and so, it cannot be said that he had come to know about inclusion of subject plot in extended Lal Dora in the year 2006 and so, the revision petition filed by third respondent is hopelessly barred by time and Financial Commissioner has erred in entertaining third respondent’s revision petition. It is submitted that Rule 6(k) of The Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (henceforth referred to as Prevention of Fragmentation Rules) cannot bar petitioner because he had stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar, who was predecessor-in-interest in respect of subject plot. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and allotment of subject plot deserves to be restored to petitioner.

5. On the contrary, counsel for third respondent supports the impugned order and submits that petitioner has been rightly excluded as Rule 6(k) of Prevention of Fragmentation Rules bars