The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the interpretation of its provisions regarding bhumidari rights, res judicata, and the limitation period for filing a claim.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Appeal no. 167/2016. The petitioner prays for restoration of order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, District North, Delhi and for remanding back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)/Revenue Assistant (RA), Narela, Delhi for fresh hearing and passing a speaking order in the case.

2. Facts as given in the petition are as follows: One Khemchand, the paternal grandfather of the petitioner herein, was the recorded owner of agricultural land measuring 132 bighas 14 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi to the extent of his share i.e. 58 bighas 1 biswas. The said Khemchand had one son, Kali Ram, father of the petitioner herein.

3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after the death of Khemchand, grandfather of the petitioner, his father Kaliram became owner of the said land measuring 58 bighas 1 biswas. Mutation to that effect was sanctioned in the name of Kaliram vide mutation no. 107 on 25.02.1937. It is stated that Kaliram was only 6 months old at the time of sanction of mutation. After the death of his father, Kaliram was brought up by his maternal grandparents and his entire land was being looked after by one Sh. Chandgi and Kuraria, who were cousins of Khemchand, grandfather of petitioner herein. The said Chandgi and Kuraria are predecessors in interest of the respondents 2 to 17 herein.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Chandgi and Kuraria taking advantage of Kaliram being minor, fraudulently and mischievously with a view to grab the land of Kaliram, got the revenue records fabricated and forged in collusion with the Revenue officials. Upon the enactment of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act), the said Chandgi and Kuraria, predecessors in interest of the respondents, got themselves declared as bhumidars of the said land by virtue of Bhumidari Certificate dated 14.04.1958 issued by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, Kaliram died on 28.08.2003. In the month of September 2008, the petitioner herein being the son of Kaliram, came to know about the fraud having been committed by the predecessors of the respondents, when they found some old revenue records pertaining to the land in question. Thus, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the DLR Act for declaration of his bhumidari rights in the record of the Revenue Assistant (Narela), Delhi.

6. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the RA, Narela by order dated 27.07.2009 by applying the doctrine of res-judicata. The said order dated 27.07.2009 passed by RA was challenged by the petitioner before Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, North West, Kanjhawala, Delhi by filing an appeal under Section 187 of the DLR Act. By order dated 04.04.2016, the District Magistrate, District North, Delhi set aside the order passed by the RA, Narela and remanded back the matter to the RA, Narela for fresh hearing and passing a speaking order.

7. Respondents herein filed a second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi being Appeal No. 167/2016 challenging the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the District Magistrate. The learned Financial Commissioner by impugned order dated 13.07.2018 held that predecessors of the respondents herein had been declared bhumidars way back in the year 1958 and by relying upon orders passed in the previous litigation initiated on behalf of father of the petitioner, it was held that the case was barred by principles of res-judicata. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the documents relied upon by the Financial Commissioner namely Judgment dated 01.05.1958 in Civil Suit No. 302/1956; Judgment dated 19.07.1959 in Suit No. 310/1958 and judgment dated