Satnam Singh vs D.D.C. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 8 to 44 returnable at an early date.

The Gaon Sabha is represented through its counsel Sri D.D. Chauhan.

Steps be taken within two weeks.

This is a matter pertaining to allotment of Chaks. The entire dispute had travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 7534 of 1996. During the pendency of the said writ petition applications were moved alleging that the contesting parties had alienated the land and the Vendees were proceeding to raise constructions. The said interim applications came to be disposed of on 2nd March, 2005 and a final order was passed on 16.5.2005 restraining the Respondents from raising any constructions over the plots in dispute. The writ petition was ultimately allowed on 22th November, 2010 and a copy of the said judgment is annexure 13 to the writ petition.

While allowing the writ petition, the Court observed that the Petitioners were entitled to retain their Chaks by the roadside land and non-consideration of the convenience of the Petitioner vitiated the orders under challenge. While allowing the writ petition, this Court further observed that even if the land is not besides the highway still the holding was of a special potential and, therefore, equities ought to have been adjusted between the parties accordingly. The Court further went on to direct as follows:

Further the Court is of the view that the sale deeds already executed up to this date, would not be affected by this order and the constructions already raised would also not be affected by this order as the sale deeds were executed by the Respondents for value and at the time when there was no interim order by this Court and further the purchasers have already raised constructions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation at this stage can only consider whether a chak of proportionate area available on the plots comprising of the khata in dispute by the road side can be allotted to the Petitioner or not. For the said purpose he will have to get a survey carried out and also make a spot inspection and only thereafter pass appropriate orders.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has now proceeded to decide the revision and has held that since a large number of constructions have been raised, at the same time recording that some of them are without sale deeds. It will not be possible now to make the adjustments, in the light of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. The revision has, therefore been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

Sri P.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited the attention of the court to the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to contend that it is more than evident that the contesting Respondents had the sold land during the pendency of the litigation and now shielded by the impugned order, they are raising submissions so as to nonsuit the Petitioner of his rightful claim over the lands in dispute.

Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 contends that it is not known as to whether the land was either sold or agreed to be sold prior to the interim order passed by this Court and since there was no interim order prior to 2005, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not bound to consider any such plea raised by the Petitioner. To elaborate further Sri Verma submits that the sale deed or the agreement to sale entered into prior to the interim order would not be covered by the final judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove and therefore, the tenure holders would be entitled to vend their land in terms of the agreement of sale. He further contends that if any construction has been raised on such land, even if there is no sale deed, then too even the decision of this Court dated 12.11.2010 is not on impediment.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, prima facie, it is evident that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither recorded any findings in relation to the date of the constructions or the date of the alleged agreement to sale as urged by Sri Verma who proposes to bring the same on record through a counter affidavit. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation therefore are clearly in teeth of the judgment dated 12.11.2010 and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled for an interim relief as Sri Verma prays for time to file a counter affidavit.

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 2.4.2011 shall remain stayed and the parties to this writ petition are clearly restrained from further alienating the properties in question including acquisition of any sale deeds in order to avoid any further complications. The parties shall also not raise any constructions and change the nature of the land in dispute.

A supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

After the orders were passed, Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 prays that the matter be taken up on 29th April, 2011 so as to enable him to obtain instructions from his clients in relation to the filing of a counter affidavit.

Put up on 29th April, 2011.