Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUNIL GAUR
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of in limini with liberty to the petitioners to prefer
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 s. 72
- Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ss. 84, 187
Judgment
Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate versus THE REVENUE ASSISTANT , VASANT VIHAR ANR ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for Dr. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for R-1 &R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORDER
01.06.2012 CM No. 7579/2012 (U/S 151 CPC) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions W.P.(C) No. 3604/2012 & CM No. 7578/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) The order of 2U' March, 2011 (AimexureP-6) dismissing the suit for partition filed by the respondents No. 3 & 4 against petitioners herein, is in favour of petitioners. ^ When petitioners were defending application for demarcation of the subject land sought by one - Brahm Prakash, son of Shri Ram Gopal, petitioners were purportedly told by the concerned authorities that there are no clear findings in the order of 2U^ March, 2011 (Annexure P-6). In view thereof, to resist the application for demarcation (Annexure P-7), petitioners had sought clarification of order of 21®^ March, 2011 (Annexure P-6) vide application of 2U' Signature Not Verified May, 2012 (Annexure P-11). Signing Date:19.09.2024 17:09:19 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
W.PfC)No. 3604/2012 ~ The grievance made in this petition is that the said application is not being considered by the concerned Revenue Assistant. Upon Notice, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 5 states that the clarification application (Annexure P-11) is misconceived and instead thereof, the petitioners ought to have invoked Section 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 to seek revision of the order of March, 2011 (Annexure P- 6). Regarding the grievance of the petitioners having not being given fair hearing by the concerned Revenue Assistant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 5 states, that for this grievance also the petitioners have to seek the remedy before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is substantial merit in the opposition to this petition by learned counsel for respondents No.
Operative part
1 & 5, as the clarification application (Annexure P-11) infact seeks upsetting of the order of 2U^ March, 2011 (Annexure P-6), which cannot be done by the concerned Revenue Assistant by reviewing his own order. Therefore, this petition is disposed of in limini with liberty to the petitioners to prefer a revision petition under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 or any other remedy, as available in law as the pleas taken herein can be urged before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. The apprehension of the petitioners of being dispossessed in pursuance to the demarcation being carried in pursuance to the application (Annexure P-7) is misplaced for the reason that if ultimately demarcation report is against the petitioners, then the aggrieved party has to seek the remedy under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. W.P.[Q No. 3604/2012 At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners states that he would be seeking his remedy before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi within eight weeks. Petitioners are at liberty to do so. This petition and pending application are disposed of with aforesaid observations. Dasti. JUNE 01,2012 TSUNILGAUR) JUDGE W.P.(QNo. 3604/2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of in limini with liberty to the petitioners to prefer
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 — s. 72; Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 — ss. 84, 187.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.