TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi Holdings (Consolidation Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (Rules for short). It is pointed out that in the present case, the said amendment was not applicable as the consolidation proceedings relate to the year 1974-75. 3. Inspite of the aforesaid error pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 9th November, 2010, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present appeal. Consolidation proceedings in village Burari started in the year 1970 and repartition under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act, for short) as extended to Delhi was carried out in July-August, 1974. The repartition proceedings thereafter were confirmed on 17th June, 1975 and objections were invited and resolution No. 26 dated 18th June, 1975 was passed. Consolidation proceedings came to an end in June, 1982. 4. The Appellant herein was not owner of any land at the time of repartition. They claim that they have purchased land admeasuring 3 bighas and 1 biswa in Khasra No. 122/5 vide registered sale deed dated 14th March, 1982 from one Daljit Bhalla and Ors. The case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-consolidation of Khasra No. 1055(0-12) and (2-8) and Khasra No. 1093 (2-17) i.e. a total area of 5 bighas 17 biswas which was the pre-consolidation holding of Smt. Tara Wanti and Sh. Ho Ram. Consolidation proceedings were initiated on 8th April, 1974 after the scheme was confirmed through resolution No. 14. During consolidation proceedings, new Khasra Nos. were givenand the holdings of each Khata was also evaluated. Khasra No. 122/5 (3-1) was carved out of these pre-consolidation proceedings, new Khasra Nos. and the Register Karwahi only shows that it was included in the Khata of the Gaon Sabha. Since this land was withdrawn from the Khata of the Gaon Sabha through resolution No. 61, the fact that it stood in the Khata of the Gaon Sabha stands established. The repartition proceedings were confirmed on 17th June, 1975 and objections were invited and resolution No. 26 dated 18th June, 1975 is a verification of this fact. [The entry at serial No. 283 and the Register Karwahi Jild No. 2 shows allotment of Khasra No. 783 vide resolution No. 22 to the Respondents which was subsequently withdrawn, land in Khasra No. 122/5 min. was allotted through resolution No. 61] 7. The entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that there is no entry of any allotment entered in the Khata of Gordhan in respect of Khasra No. 122/5 and the said Khasra No. has been entered only after cutting other numbers. I have noticed that word min was not mentioned at this point of time. The Khatouni Pamaish of 1980-81 in respect of Khata No. 283 of Respondents shows the entry of Khasra No. 122/5/2 (0-18), and it appears that it was tamptered/written after deleting the original entry of 122/5/1 with an area of (3-01). Khasra No. 122/5 min allotted to the Respondents vide resolution No. 61 dated 4th August 1976 shows an area of (3-1) and not an area of (0-18). This fact is confirmed when we look at the entries in the Khata of the Gaon Sabha (Jujbi No. 707). 9. The Field Book is a record of the measurement of the field with pre-consolidation Nos. as well as new Nos. Entries in the Field Book for the year 1980-81; part 4 show that Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out of pre-consolidation Khasra No. 1055 and 1093. Khasra No. 122/5 was therefore divided into 122/5/1 and 122/5/2, where the word min' has also been used. In these entries, there is once again a cutting indicating that area of (0-2) was deducted from Khasra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asra No. The record produced and relied upon by the Petitioner/Appellant is tampered with which can be detected/seen with naked eyes. Further from the inspection of Khatoni Paimaish of the Respondent, it is further apparent that Khasra No. 122/5/1 (3-1) has been tampered to read as 122/5/2 (0-18). The other piece of land allotted to the Respondents bearing Khasra No. 123/1/1 (0-12) has also been tampered to read as 123/1/2 (0-12) without there being any note or order. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to disturb the aforesaid factual findings. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to show that the aforesaid findings merit and justify interference on the ground they are not based upon any material or evidence or ignore material or are perverse. The Financial Commissioner has thoroughly examined the matter after considering and scrutinizing the original records. If the Appellants do not have any claim on Khasra No. 122/5, their contention and challenge to allotment to the private Respondents has to fail. It may also be noted that the private Respondents have been allotted 4.4 bigha agricultural land in lieu of 2.2 bigha residential land which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
