Ran Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

JUDGMENT

I. S. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of following three orders: a. Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by Ld. District Collector in Appeal No. 204/2013 whereby the partition order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the Revenue Assistant/Collector of Stamps (Alipur) in Case No. 316/S.O.(C)/N/04 with respect to land in question was set aside. b. Order dated 23.05.2014 in Case No. 238/2013 passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner, Delhi upholding findings of Ld. District Collector. c. Review order dated 20.11.2014 in Case No. 107/2014 passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner, Delhi keeping status quo with order dated 23.05.2014 passed by predecessor Ld. Financial Commissioner. Petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside aforesaid impugned orders and for restoring the partition order dated 19.06.2013.

2. Facts on record shows that one Maan Singh had three sons: a. Ran Singh (Petitioner herein) b. Ajit Singh (Respondent No.2 herein) c. Krishan Kumar (Respondent No.3 herein) Ran Singh claims he and respondents Ajit Singh and Krishan Singh owns joint holding land bearing Khasra No. 69//6 (3-3), 7 (4-12), 69//14 (4-16), 15 (2-14), 69//16-17 min (4-18) total measuring 20 Bigha and 3 Biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Alipur, Delhi. Ran Singh for partition reports to the Halka Patwari who prepares the record of the joint holding of the aforesaid sons of Maan Singh and presents to the Revenue Assistant/Collector of Stamps for partition. The report dated 06.02.2008 of Halka Patwari dividing the joint holding land in three equal parts is as under: Name Khasra No. Rakwa No. a. Ran Singh 69//

3. Respondents filed reply dissenting partition of suit property. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 disputed that area of the total land is not 20 Bigha and 03 Biswa and rather 27 Bigha and 15 Biswa. The respondents raises question of title to petitioner's equal entitlement with respondent nos. 2 and 3 as petitioner has already sold 7 Bigha and 12 Biswa from total land to various purchasers through registered sale deed and the amount is also realized to him. The partition is not maintainable as per terms of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954.

4. On the basis of the report dated 06.02.2008 of Halka Patwari and reply filed by respondents, Revenue Assistant/Collector of Stamps passed partition order dated 19.06.2013.

5. Aggrieved from the said order respondent nos. 2 and 3 preferred appeal before the District Collector. District Collector heard the parties and set aside the partition order dated 19.06.2013 vide order dated 24.10.2013 and remanded back the matter to Revenue Assistant/Collector of Stamps for fresh consideration after giving liberty to take recourse of legal remedies.

6. It seems petitioner on 02.01.2014 also preferred to file a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction before Senior Civil Judge, District (North), Rohini, Delhi in Suit No. 58496/16 including one more Khasra No. 581 measuring standard 3-00. This factum was concealed in the present petition. The petitioner further taken one another route by filing an appeal before the Ld. Financial Commissioner and same was rejected vide order dated 23.05.2014.

7. Petitioner further aggrieved from the said order of Ld Financial Commissioner preferred to file a review petition before Ld. Financial Commissioner. The said review too was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2014.

8. Aggrieved from the said order of Ld. Financial Commissioner petitioner filed Writ in nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this court for setting aside impugned orders.

9. The petitioner in the present writ petition assailed the order of the Ld. Financial Commissioner dated 23.05.2014 and 20.11.2014 to be non speaking order and contrary to the facts on record and stated that alleged GPA, agreement to sell, possession letter dated 07.02.2001, etc. procured and relied upon by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are totally forged and fabricated documents with the sole motive of grabbing the share of the petitioner in the said land. On the basis of aforesaid documents respondent nos. 2 and 3 in collusion and connivance with revenue officials have further executed and got registered a gift deed dated 10.12.2013 in favour of their sons i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 8 herein. The said gift deed dated 10.12.2013 on basis of GPA dated 07.02.2001 is totally null and void. The gift deed dated 10.12.2013 was registered by Sub-Registrar, Alipur.

10. Per contra, Counsel for respondents has submitted that the order of District Collector and Financial Commissioner were rightly passed and the present petition of the petitioner be rejected.

11. The prayer of the petitioner for partition of the joint holdings among the co-sharer i.e. Ran Singh, Ajit Singh and Krishan Kumar can be allowed in the equal share only when there is no title dispute among the parties as per law. However, the respondents have pleaded that petitioner is not entitled to equal share against the respondents as he has already sold 7 Bigha and 12 Biswa from the total joint holding. The version of the respondents is further strengthened by the pleading of the petitioner in the Civil Suit No. 58496/16.

12. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has sought the partition of the land measuring 20 Bigha and 03 Biswa as per the revenue records and petitioner is entitiled to claim his share under Punjab Land Revenue Act as Delhi Land Reforms Act is not applicable. The property in question remained subject matter of Punjab Land Revenue Act as the land remained in the color of evacuee property at the time of purchase. Therefore, Delhi Land Reforms Act would not be applied.

13. The aforesaid facts emerging on the records does not determines the exact entitlement of area of the land, it could only be determined through a civil court by the respective pleadings and evidence led by the parties. Therefore, in these circumstances the respondents have succeeded in bringing the factum of record that there is a question of title involved in the present petition which would be determined by the competent civil court of its jurisdiction. Moreover, this court in RFA No. 1027/2017 titled Ran Singh v. Ajit Singh & Ors. dated 19.07.2018 pertaining to the civil suit passed the following observation which is reproduced as under:

14. Therefore, petitioner for determination of his share and its applicability of law, as the same is mixed question of facts and law, may approach to the competent Civil Court which would be determining the dispute on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and proceed the matter in accordance with law.

15. The present petition for necessary direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for partition on the basis of order passed by Revenue Assistant dated 19.06.2013 is rejected and present writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

16. The impugned order passed by District Collector and Financial Commissioner does not require any interference at this stage.

I.S.MEHTA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 25, 2019