Partition law: Share in land and entries in the records of right
Civil Appeal No. 2522 of 2016
Bench: Chief Justice of India, T. S. Thakur; Justice A. K. Sikri; Justice R. Banumathi
Case Brief: In the present case, an appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgement of the High Court. In the facts of the case, the appellants and private respondents being total 30 in numbers are the members of one family and their predecessors owned a land since 1948 which is being earlier to the enactment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The appellants claimed to have share with the private respondents in the said land which is now owned by the family members. Moreover, when the Act of 1954 was brought into force the said land was recorded in the Bhumidari of the appellants only. Thus, the private respondents claimed their right in the land along with appellants, however these appellants claimed that they are exclusively vested with the land as a result of oral partition and repartition during consolidation proceedings conducted in the year 1975-76. Also, the claim of the appellants was considered and decided in their favour by the Court of Revenue Assistant and the first appeal against such order is also dismissed, however, their second appeal is accepted by the Financial Commissioner by the other of 1979, and in the effect of such order the Consolidation officer implemented it and the private respondents were also declared as Bhoomidars in the said land, by his order of 1982. However, the revision petition preferred by the Appellant challenging the order of 1982 saying it have become functus officio, was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Moreover, the appellants have further preferred writ petition before the High Court against the dismissal order of Financial Commissioner, however, to no effect. However, after such long process, the Financial Commissioner’s order had attained finality. Moreover, the respondent no. 26, who was also feeling aggrieved filed revision petition, and the matter was remanded by the Financial Commissioner to the Consolidation Officer for correct implementation. Looking towards the success of the Respondent no. 26, the appellants here emboldened and they file another revision petition and they claimed that the Apex court has permitted them to claim their rightful share, however, again their revision petition was dismissed, however, the appellants were suggested to approach Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation officer by its order (1988) divided the land amongst the co- sharers and in the said order, the Consolidation officer noted that same was agreed by all parties. Similarly, after some other litigations, the appellants have filed letter patent appeal against the orders of the leaned single judge, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Thus, the Apex Court in the present appeal held that considering and analysing each of such orders there is found no scope for interfering in the order of the High Court. Thus, the Court found no reasons and merits in the appeal, hence dismissed.
Read the Judgement: Ram Dutt(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors. Vs. Dev Dutt(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors.