IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a challenge to a Bhumidhari Certificate filed 50 years later was grossly barred by delay and laches, and that the Appellant, who was not in physical possession of the land, had no locus to maintain the Section 11 Application.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 7376/2024 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

LPA 99/2024 and CM APPL. 7378/2024 (for condonation of delay)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 18th May, 2023, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10548/2018, dismissing the said writ petition filed against order dated 13th July, 2018, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in second appeal bearing case No. 167/2016. The learned Single Judge held that the proceeding initiated by the Appellant under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (`DLR Act') was highly belated and barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as under:

2.1. It is stated that originally one late Sh. Khem Chand, was the recorded co-owner of the agricultural land, ad-measuring 132 Bighas 14 Biswas, situated in Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi, to the extent of his share i.e. 58 Bighas 1 biswas (`subject agricultural land').

2.2. It is stated that after the demise of Sh. Khem Chand on 23rd January, 1937, Appellant's father, Sh. Kali Ram (since deceased), who was barely 4- 5 months old at that time, became the recorded owner of the subject agricultural land vide mutation no. 107 on 23rd February, 1937.

2.3. It is stated that post demise of his father, Sh. Kali Ram during his nascent years was brought up by his maternal grandparents and the entire subject agricultural land was being taken care of and cultivated by his cousins i.e., late Sh. Chandgi and late Sh. Kuraria [predecessors-in-interest of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 herein].

2.4. It is stated that Sh. Chandgi and Sh. Kuraria took undue advantage of Sh. Kali Ram's minority; played a fraud upon him and manipulated the revenue records of 1953-54 as regards the nature of their possession. It is stated that on the basis of said manipulated records, a Bhumidhari Certificate dated 14th April, 1958, was wrongly issued by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi, in their favour.

2.5. It is stated that Sh. Kali Ram died on 28th August, 2003. However, the Appellant herein became aware of the said fraud in recording the entries of 1953-54 by Sh. Chandgi and Sh. Kuraria in the year 2008 and accordingly, filed an application [in his capacity as the legal heir of Sh. Kali Ram], under Section 11 of the DLR Act (`Section 11 Application'), seeking declaration of bhumidhari rights qua the subject agricultural land, in his favour.

2.6. The said application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate /Revenue Assistant, Narela, Delhi (`Revenue Assistant'), vide order dated 27th July, 2009, holding the same to be barred by the principles of res- judicata.

2.7. The Appellant herein filed an appeal bearing No. 265/DC/NW/2009/3865 against the said order, which was allowed by the District Magistrate/Collector, GNCTD, North District, Main G.T. Karnal Road, Alipur, Delhi (`District Magistrate') vide order dated 04th April, 2016. The District Magistrate set aside the order dated 27th July, 2009 and remanded the matter to Revenue Assistant for de-novo proceedings and passing of a speaking order.

2.8. Subsequently, the Respondents filed the second appeal bearing case No. 167/2016, wherein the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 13th July, 2018, set aside the District Magistrate's order dated 04th April, 2016 and held that the Section 11 Application filed by Appellant is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The Financial Commissioner relied upon judgments and orders dated 1st May, 1958, 31st July, 1959 and 31st October, 1960, passed, inter-se, Sh. Kali Ram and Sh. Chandgi - Sh. Kuraria, to hold that the issue of bhumidhari rights has already been decided during the lifetime of Sh. Kali Ram vide aforesaid judgments and the Appellant's case is barred by the principles of res judicata.

2.9. The Appellant herein filed the writ petition against the Financial Commissioner's order dated 13th