Satish Kumar Goel & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. During the pendency of a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, the appellants filed a copy of the objections purporting to be filed by them before the Consolidation Officer. Thereupon an application was filed by the respondent Smt.Priya Ralhan, alleging therein that the said objections were forged documents since no such objections were actually filed before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer stated before the Financial Commissioner, in writing, that no such objections had been filed. As a result, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 28.2.2011, directed that a complaint, in writing be made to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for taking cognizance and trying the LPA 821/2012 2013:DHC:899-DB appellants for the offences mentioned in the order or any other offence which they may be found to have committed. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner by way of WP(C) No.6794/2011. The learned Single Judge having found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the order of Financial Commissioner dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us by way of this appeal.

2. Since the appellant relied upon the report of the patwari dated 7th July, 2007 in support of their contention that such objections were actually filed by them, we directed the learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions in respect of the aforesaid report which is Annexure `P3’ (page 88-89) of the Appeal paper book, to find out whether the appellant had earlier filed any objection or not. Since no report in compliance of the said order was filed, we directed concerned patwari to remain present today. The concerned patwari is, accordingly, present before us. When confronted with the report dated 7th July, 2007 wherein he stated that “Sh.Satish Goel etc. have objected on the ground that it was our old Kh.No. and same be allotted to us.” He states that only an application was filed by the appellants and he was referring to that application when he submitted report with the above quoted statement. We asked the learned counsel for the respondents to produce before us the application which finds reference as objections in the report of patwari dated 7th July, 2007. The said application however has not been produced. In these circumstances, considering the aforesaid report dated 7th July, 2007, it appears to us that the petitioners had submitted objections, may be in the form of an application which the patwari had referred in his report dated 7th July, 2007. In the absence of production of the application submitted by the appellants, we cannot say that the copy of the purported objections filed before the Financial Commissioner was a forged or morphed document. Consequently, we cannot sustain the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2012 and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 28th February, 2011 and the same are hereby set aside. The appeal and all pending applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 18, 2013 ks