Hari Singh and Others vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

S. Muralidhar, J.—The ten petitioners in this writ petition are residents of Village Bhalaswa Jahangirpuri, Delhi. They have come together to challenge an order dated 17.5.1985 passed by the Lt. Governor Delhi allowing a revision petition filed by Respondent No. 5, Shri Kishan Chand, and setting aside an order dated 30.6.1976 passed by the Competent Authority. Consequently the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for re-determination of the land held by Respondent No. 5 in excess of the ceiling limit in accordance with the provisions of law. The challenge in this writ petition is also to an order dated 8.8.1985 passed by the Competent Authority on remand holding that there was no surplus land in the hands of Respondent No. 5. The background to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioners are landless scheduled caste agriculturists labour of village Bhalaswa. The were allotted agricultural land u/s 16 of the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act, 1960 ("Act) and Rule 24 of the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Rules 1961. It is stated that the said land was allotted to the petitioners from the Lands of the Respondent No. 5 declared surplus under Sections 6 and 9 of the said Act. The petitioners contented that they were cultivating the lands allotted to them till 8.8.1985 when they were dispossessed of the said lands by Respondent No. 5 consequent to the order passed on that date by the Competent Authority.

It is claimed further that originally by an order dated 30.6.1976 the Competent Authority, i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein, had held that 53 bighas and 2 biswas of land held by Respondent No. 5 was in excess of the ceiling limit. That order became final with Respondent No. 5 not challenging it. The surplus land so declared was notified u/s 9(3) of the Act. It was out of this surplus land that on 1.7.1983 land was allotted to each of the petitioners u/s 16 of the Act. Thereafter on 9.1.1984 Respondent No. 5 Kishan Chand made an application before the Competent Authority for review of the order dated 5.11.1976. By an order dated 8.2.1985 the Competent Authority dismissed the review petition holding that there were no provision in the Act permitting the Competent Authority to review its order. Against the order dated 8.2.1985 Respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition before the Lt. Governor u/s 20 of the Act. That revision petition came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 17.5.1985. The order dated 30.6.1976 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for a fresh determination. Thereafter the second impugned order dated 8.8.1985 was passed by the Competent Authority holding that there was no surplus land in the hands of Respondent No. 5.

Since the order dated 17.5.1985 by the Lt. Governor and the order dated 8.8.1985 by the Competent Authority were made in the absence of the petitioners herein, they filed a revision petition before the Lt. Governor u/s 20 of the Act. While dismissing the said revision petition by the order dated 25.3.1986, the Lt. Governor directed the Panchayat Department/Gaon Sabha to allot the land to the petitioners out of the Gaon Sabha land. It is claimed that during the arguments before the Lt. Governor the Patwari of the village produced the record of Gaon Sabha land and stated that about 97 bighas of land were available for allotment. However, it is stated that after the passing of the said order although the petitioner approached the Gaon Sabha, no land was allotted to them. Ultimately in November 1998 the petitioners were given a copy of a reply by the Block Development Officer Alipur stating that no land is available with the Gaon Sabha and therefore no allotment can be made in their favour.

The main grievance in this writ petition is, therefore, two-fold. First, the petitioners contend that the orders dated 17.5.1985 passed by the Lt. Governor and the consequent order dated 8.8.1985 passed by the Competent Authority are without jurisdiction and ought to be set aside. It is next contended that despite the land being available for allotment to each of the petitioners in the village in question, the respondents have failed to allot such land and they have acted in contravention of the order dated 25.3.1986 passed by the Lt. Governor.

As regards the order dated 17.5.1985 passed by the Lt. Governor, it is noticed that there was a mistake committed in the earlier round when the order dated 30.6.1976 came to be passed. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 5 in these proceedings reveal that the land to the extent of 29 bighas and 8 biswas which was declared to be surplus had in fact been acquired in land acquisition proceedings even prior to the order dated 30.6.1976. Since the lands had already been acquired the question of the same being declared surplus did not arise. Further, land to the extent of 19 bighas and 6 biswas of land had already been vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and was also not meant to be included in the holding of Respondent No. 5. It was this that prompted Respondent No. 5 to approach the Competent Authority with review petition which was rightly dismissed by the Competent Authority on the ground that it had no power of review under the Act.

In the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.5.1985 passed by the Lt. Governor in exercise of his revisionary powers u/s 20 of the Act remanding the matter to the Competent Authority to re-determine the question whether Respondent'' No. 5 had any surplus land cannot be faulted with. If the very factual basis on which the powers under the Act came to be exercised did not exist, then it was only in the fitness of things that the Lt. Governor should have directed a fresh determination in accordance with law. The contention of the petitioners that there was no power in the Lt. Governor to review his own order is misconceived in the facts of the present case. The Lt. Governor here was not exercising are view power but a revisionary power u/s 20 of the Act and was with in his powers to quash the earlier order dated 30.6.1976 passed by the Competent Authority. This court does not find anything erroneous in the said order of the Lt. Governor that warrants interference.

The second impugned order dated 8.8.1985 passed by the Competent Authority also correctly holds that in view of the fact that some portion of the land already stood acquired by the government and the remaining land already standing vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reform Act, the question of such land being again included in the holding of the Respondent No. 5 simply did not arise. Reliance was rightly placed on the decision of this Court dated 7.11.1979 in Nafe Singh vs. Lt. Governor Delhi for this purpose. In that view of the matter no interference is called for with the order dated 8.5.1985 passed by the Competent Authority.

The only question, therefore, that remains to be decided is whether the Respondents have failed to implement the order dated 25.3.1986 passed by the Lt. Governor directing them to allot surplus land in favour of each of the petitioners in accordance with law. Although it is true that the Patwari of the village stated before the Lt. Governor in the course of the proceedings around 97 bighas of land was available in the village for allotment, it now transpires from the affidavits and additional affidavit filed by the Respondents in these proceedings, that the said statement of the Patwari was not factually correct. It has been repeatedly stated on affidavit before this Court that there is no land available for allotment to each of the petitioners. If this is the factual position, this court can do little to disbelieve it and still order that the land must be allotted to each of the petitioners. The petitioners have contended that over 4700 bighas of Gaon Sabha land in village Bhalaswa had been misappropriated and a CBI enquiry must be ordered by this Court. The Court is unable to accede to this plea for more than one reason. First, the respondents have denied the allegations and have maintained that there is no surplus land. Secondly, the disputed fact cannot be determined in these proceedings under article 226 of the constitutions. In the absence of any factual basis, the question of directing any enquiry much less a CBI enquiry, does not arise. In that view of the matter this prayer also cannot be acceded to. For all of the above reasons there is no merit in this write petition and it is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.