Mohd Nafish Khan & Ors v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

1. The appellants' grievance is that their plea of limitation under Section. 81 read with Entry 17 of the First Schedule to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was considered neither by the Revenue Assistant - who initiated ejectment proceedings, nor by the Financial Commissioner whom the appellants approached for revision. The learned Single Judge rejectedtheir writ petition, after considering the materials and documents on the record.

2. This Court has consideredthe submissions ofthe parties. It is evident that both the Revenue Assistant and the Financial Commissioner did not advert to the facts pertaining to the plea of limitation, which went into the root of their jurisdiction. No doubt, the Single Judge affirmed their decision by placing reliance upon the materials placed by the Revenue such as the Halka Patwari's report. Nevertheless, the Court notices that the issue of limitation was something that ought to have been considered based upon the material adduced before the concerned Tribunals/quasi judicial bodies i.e. the Revenue Assistant and the Tribunals.

3. In these circumstances, rather than analyzing the correctness of the findings - which are partly based upon appreciation of the facts, the Court is ofthe opinion that the matter ought to be remitted to the concernedappellate LPA No.456/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of[3] body. In circumstances, the order ofthe Financial Commissioner is hereby set aside. This does not imply that the orier of the Revenue Assistant,salsosetaside. The orderofthe RevenueAssistisdirectedto stand. Itisopentotheappellantstopreferappealstotheappellateauthority under Section 185 read withFirstSchedule Entry 17Column 8to the Delhi LandRefonnsAct, 1954,provideditis donewithinfour weeks from today.

4. The parties are directed to be present before the concerned appellate body i.e. the Divisional Commissioner on 11.09.2017.

5. The Divisional Commissioner shall either decide the case himself if he is empowered to do so or assign it to the concerned officer who is authorized to decide such appeals. In the event of the appeals being presented in accordance with these directions, the concerned appellate authority Shaltdecide thesamewithin four months fromthedateoffilingof such appeals. All rights and contentions oftheparties are reserved.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J