2011 (3) TMI 1811 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeal, invalid land claim, tampered evidence, prior order acceptance weakens case

The court found that the 1996 amendment to Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings Rules did not apply to the consolidation proceedings. It was established ... Concurrent findings of fact - scope of judicial review of quasi-judicial findings - repartition proceedings and allotment in consolidation scheme - tampering of revenue records - finality of acceptance of order - effect of a remand/judgment in rem on distinct petitionsConcurrent findings of fact - scope of judicial review of quasi-judicial findings - tampering of revenue records - repartition proceedings and allotment in consolidation scheme - Whether the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner rejecting the appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5 and holding that the records were tampered with warrant interference. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the Financial Commissioner's scrutiny of original consolidation and register records, noting specific entries, cross-checks and the finding that Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out of pre-consolidation holdings of others and was allotted to the private respondents. The Financial Commissioner found discrepancies and apparent tampering in entries relied upon by the appellant. The High Court held that these factual findings were based on the original records and careful examination and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that those findings were without material, perverse, or otherwise liable to interference. Consequently, the court declined to disturb the Financial Commissioner's conclusions on allotment and tampering. [Paras 7]Findings of the Financial Commissioner rejecting the appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5 and recording tampering in records are upheld; the challenge to allotment to the private respondents fails and the appeal is dismissed on this ground.Effect of a remand/judgment in rem on distinct petitions - finality of acceptance of order - Whether the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 in W.P.(C) No. 3650/2002 had the effect of setting aside the Financial Commissioner's order dated 23rd April, 2002 in the separate petition No. 219/89-CA filed by the present appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Court analysed the scope and operative effect of the earlier judgment which set aside the Financial Commissioner's order in relation to the petition of Ms. Dharam Devi (W.P.(C) No. 3650/2002) and remanded that matter for fresh decision. The court observed that the case number referred to in the 2004 judgment related to Dharam Devi's petition and not to the appellant's separate petition bearing a different case number. The appellant had accepted the Financial Commissioner's order of 23rd April, 2002 in his own petition, and no successful argument was shown to establish that the 2004 judgment revived or set aside the order in the appellant's distinct petition. On this basis the court found that the 2004 judgment did not affect the finality of the Financial Commissioner's order in petition No. 219/89-CA. [Paras 3]The 3rd September, 2004 judgment did not set aside or revive the Financial Commissioner's order in the appellant's separate petition; the appellant's acceptance of that order renders his challenge unsustainable and the appeal is dismissed on this ground.Final Conclusion: The Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. The High Court affirms the Financial Commissioner's factual findings on allotment and tampering of revenue records and holds that an earlier remand/judgment in a different petition did not affect the finality of the Financial Commissioner's order in the appellant's separate petition. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the 1996 amendment to the Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959.2. Validity of the Appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5.3. Examination of the Financial Commissioner's findings.4. Impact of the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 on the Appellant's petition.Summary:1. Applicability of the 1996 amendment to the Rule 6(j)(i):The Appellant argued that the 1996 amendment to Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 was not applicable as the consolidation proceedings related to the year 1974-75. Despite this error in the impugned order dated 9th November, 2010, the court was not inclined to issue notice in the appeal.2. Validity of the Appellant's claim to Khasra No. 122/5:The Appellant claimed ownership of land in Khasra No. 122/5 based on a sale deed dated 14th March, 1982. However, the Financial Commissioner's findings indicated that Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out of pre-consolidation Khasra Nos. 1055 and 1093, which were in the name of Tara Wanti and Ho Ram, not Gordhan. The land was subsequently allotted to the Respondents through resolution No. 61 dated 4th August, 1976. The Financial Commissioner found that the records relied upon by the Appellant were tampered with, and there was no evidence of Gordhan or his successors being allotted Khasra No. 122/5.3. Examination of the Financial Commissioner's findings:The Financial Commissioner thoroughly examined the original records and concluded that Khasra No. 122/5 was never allotted to Gordhan or his successors. The findings revealed that the Appellant's claim was based on tampered records. The court found no reason to disturb these factual findings, as they were based on material evidence and were not perverse.4. Impact of the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 on the Appellant's petition:The Appellant's position was weaker as he had accepted the Financial Commissioner's order dated 23rd April, 2002, which dismissed his petition. The judgment dated 3rd September, 2004, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, pertained to the petition filed by Ms. Dharam Devi and not the Appellant's petition. The Appellant failed to show how the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004, revived his petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.