RAJENDER SINGH versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 16-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[20 I 6] 2 S.C.R. 98 I 
RAJENDER SINGH 
v. 
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1427of2016) 
FEBRUARY 16, 2016 
. [SHIVA KffiTI SINGH AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of 
Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - s. 43A, 22 - Consolidation proceedings 
under the Act commenced around 1975 and concluded in 1976 -
Afier lapse of 23 years application uls. 43A by respondents no. 4 to 
7 seeking allotment of land - On the ground that during the 
consolidation proceedings their father was found to be in possession 
over the area of scheme Khasra - Possession allegedly reflected in 
Scheme of Consolidation of the village - Dismissed by Consolidation 
Officer, however, allowed by Financial Commissioner - On remand, 
Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of respondents - Said order 
upheld in revision petition as also by the Single Judge and Division 
Bench of the High Court - On appeal, held: Final order passed by 
the Consolidation Officer was without opportunity or notice of 
hearing to the appellant and proforma re~pondenls and the order 
was passed by manipulating records -Revisional authority or the 
High Court did not consider the same - Thus, the matter remitted 
back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh hearing. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The final order passed by the Consolidation 
Officer was without opportunity or notice of hearing to. the 
appellant and proforma respondents subsequent to adjournment 
of the matter without further dates. The order itself mentions 
only the presence of TR and not the appellant or any one from 
his side. The order does not name any advocate from either of 
the sides and the observation that 'the counsel for the respondent 
has argued the case at length' may be a mistake or a casual 
observation based upon inconclusive and ineffective hearing on 
earlier dates. The revisional authority or the High Court did not 
consider the same. The matter is remitted back to the 
Consolidation Officer for fresh hearing and re-determination [Para 
7] [985-H; 986-A-B] 
981 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 The Consolidation Officer is expected to keep certain 
aspects in mind while deciding the matter afresh. The respondents 
had not prayed for mere correction in the new record of rights 
prepared at the instance of the Consolidation Officer n/s. 22 of 
the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of 
B 
Fragmentation) Act, 1948 rather they had prayed for allotment 
which was granted by th.e Consolidation Officer who ordered for 
revising the record of rights as a sequel to such allotment. 
However, if even without the allotment or allocation made by the 
Consolidation Officer through his order, the contesting 
respondents could continue with possession over the land and 
C 
whether in fact they continued to enjoy such possession, needs 
to be enquired into. Lastly, the Consolidation Officer should keep 
in mind that although it has jurisdiction to look into the claim u/s. 
43A, such· jurisdiction can be exercised only to correct errors 
which are clerical or arithmetical in nature. The mere fact that 
D the appellant conceded to jurisdiction u/s. 43A leading to an order 
of remand will not have the effect of enlarging such jurisdiction 
beyond what is prescribed by- the law. (Para 10] [987-D-G] 
E 
Mange Ram v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. (2003) 
2 SCC 1; Amar Singh, Jagram (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandgi 
(Dead) by LRs 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 738:(1989) 1 SCC 
308 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2003) 2 sec 1 
referred to 
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 738 
referred to 
Para5 
Para6 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1427 of 
G 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2013 in LPA No. 39/ 
2013 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Gagan Gupta, V.P. Ra~a., Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
R.K. Rathore;Ajay Kumar Singh, D.S. Mahra, San jay Sharawat, 
Ratish Kumar, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Ad vs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1 .. Heard the parties at some length. 
H 
Leave granted. 
RAJENDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
2. By the impugned order dated January 15, 2013 the High Court 
ofDeihi has dismissed L.P.A. No.39 of2013 preferred by the appellant. 
As a consequence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single 
Judge dated 13.12.2012 passed in W.P.(C)No.7124/2009 as well as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.