Dismissed

Rajeev Sharma v. Shri Raj Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Oct 2018W.P.(C)/2124/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Sunil Gaur dismissed the writ petition challenging an order by the Financial Commissioner that restored the Revenue Assistant's decision. The court upheld the ex parte nature of the Collector's order due to the petitioner's inordinate, unexplained delay of 24 years, rejecting technical pleas regarding the nature of the mutation application.

What did the court decide?

Petition and pending application dismissed; parties to bear their own cost.

Rajeev Sharma Vs Shri Raj Kumar & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: October 04, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 2124/2016 & CM 9120/2016

¶4

RAJEEV SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

SHRI RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Ms. Worthing Kasar and Ms. Raunika Johar, Advocates for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 Mr. Sumit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 7

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

Impugned order of 10^th November, 2015 sets aside the order of 30^th May, 2012 of the concerned Collector and thereby restores the order of 3^rd February, 1982 of the Revenue Assistant.

¶10

It is matter of record that the Revenue Assistant’s order was ex parte and even the order of the concerned Collector was ex parte. The Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has taken note of delay of more than 24 years in filing of the appeal by petitioner herein. Strangely, the concerned Collector does not deal with the delay aspect and maintains that the delay is presumed to be condoned. To say the least, such a course is not open as inordinate delay needs to be cogently explained.

¶11

W.P.(C) 2124/2016

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

Otherwise, it leads to injustice.

¶14

After having heard both the sides at length, it has now transpired that respondents’ application was for correction of Khasra/Girdawari and not for correction of the mutation. It is no longer res integra that Khasra/Girdawari does not confer a title.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondents submits that an application for correction of mutation was infact filed as the concerned Revenue Collector has directed expunging of name of petitioner’s predecessor-ininterest from the revenue record. It is also matter of record that the aspect of respondents’ application being one for correction of Khasra/Girdawari was never an issue before the authorities below.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, injustice cannot be allowed to perpetuate on a mere technicality. Substantial justice is required to be done. Since the parties have all along treated the application for correction of Khasra/Girdawari as the one relating to title i.e. of correction of mutation, therefore, respondents cannot be non-suited on this mere technicality. What stares in the face is the delay aspect. In the instant case, there is an unexplained delay of about 24 years to which the concerned Collector has closed its eyes on a lame plea that the delay is presumed to be condoned. It cannot be so. The Financial Commissioner has drawn adverse inference against the concerned Collector on this account and rightly so. On merits, the Financial Commissioner had perused the record and had found that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, i.e. Bal Kishan, had refused to accept the Notice sent by the concerned Revenue Assistant and Madan Mohan , who was also a predecessor-in-

¶17

W.P.(C) 2124/2016

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

interest of petitioner, had appeared before the Revenue Assistant on 16^th September, 1981 and the order-sheet of the next date i.e. 30^th September, 1981, records that above-said Madan Mohan was present on the last date of hearing, but had absented himself and so, proceeded ex parte.

¶20

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has asserted that the records need to be requisitioned to find out as to whether Madan Mohan , predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, had signed the ordersheet or not. Such an exercise is uncalled for as there is no basis to dispute the records so produced before the Financial Commissioner. Otherwise also, in the instant case, inordinate and unexplained delay assumes importance. After more than two decades, old record cannot possibly be traced. It is no longer res integra that the law assists those, who are vigilant and not those, who are indolent.

¶21

Consequentially, I find that the impugned order of 10^th November, 2015 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, this petition and the pending application are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

¶22

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶23

OCTOBER 04, 2018 v

¶24

W.P.(C) 2124/2016

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Rajeev Sharma v. Shri Raj Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Sharma v. Shri Raj Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chahat Ram Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mohd Khalid Ansari Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prem Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corrporation

Ms.Ravinder Kaur & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Union of India

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Land & Building Department & Anr.

Airports Authority of India Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Neeta Khatri and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chander Bhan & Ors. Vs Om Prakash & Ors.

Dilbagh Singh Suri Vs Naut Ram & Ors.

Krishna Chawla Vs Sharan Dynamics Construction & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tarsem Kaur & Ors. ( Royal Sudaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd) \

Arjun Dass & Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tarsem Kaur and Ors. (Iffco Tokio General Insaurance Co. Ltd)