http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4551 of 2000

PETITIONER: Siri Ram Batra and others

RESPONDENT: Financial Commissioner, Delhi and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.

       The only point that arises for determination is whether the  appellants are entitled to the benefit of allotment of Beshi Phirni  area as a result of inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the  extended phirni as a result of the amended Scheme of  consolidation  confirmed on 12.8.1991.         One Dinesh Kumar, respondent No. 4 in this appeal, was  right-holder of land in field No. 1244 at Alipur at the time of  commencement of the operation of consolidation.  The said land  was included in the phirni (Laldora) when the original Scheme of  consolidation was brought into force in the year 1987.  As per  the Scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land  in lieu of field No. 1244.  The area so allotted was comprised in  field Nos. 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22.  Accordingly he was put in  possession of the said lands during the repartition proceedings in  the year 1987.  Thereafter, in the year 1988 the respondent No.  4 sold his land in Killa No. 28/22 measuring 4 bighas and 9  biswas in the year 1988 to Gautam Jain, respondent No. 3  herein.  This Killa No. 28/22 was Khasra No. 324 earlier, i.e.,  pre-consolidation field number.  Since respondent No. 4 had  already taken benefit of the inclusion of his land in Field No.  1244 in the Laldora the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated  25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos. 102/19 and  102/20 to respondent No. 3 in lieu of Killa No. 28/22, which was  included in Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme  of consolidation.  The respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition  before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the  East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of  Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ’the Act’), making a  grievance that the Consolidation Officer had committed an error  in not extending the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by not  allotting him three times of the value of his land included within  the phirni as per the amended Scheme.  The Consolidation  Officer, in the comments offered by him to the revision petition,  stated that the Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa  No. 28/22 within the extended phirni has been given to the  appellants on the ground that Killa No. 28/22 actually formed  the pre-consolidation Khasra No. 324, which was in their  bhumidari.  It was further explained that the benefit of Beshi  Phirni had to be given to the previous/original bhumidars and  that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to such benefit as he  had purchased the land in question, which was mutated in his  name much after the formation of the original Scheme.  In view  of the comments the appellants were impleaded as parties to the  revision petition.  The learned Financial Commissioner, after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

elaborately considering the respective contentions of the parties  in the light of the material placed before him, allowed the claim  of respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.10.1992.  The appellants  being aggrieved by the said order of the Financial Commissioner  filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 68 of 1993 before the High Court.   Learned single Judge of the High Court by a detailed and well- considered order did not find any merit in the writ petition.   Consequently the writ petition was dismissed.  Thereafter, the  appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 468 of 1999 before  the Division Bench of the High Court.  By the impugned  judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with  the findings recorded by the learned single Judge affirming the  order of the Financial Commissioner, dismissed the appeal.   Hence this appeal.         Learned senior counsel for the appellants, on the basis of  the amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act  (Annexure P-1 \026 translated version), urged that the appellants  being old bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of  inclusion of the land Kila No. 28/22 (the original khasra No.  324), of which the appellants were bhumidars.  In particular, he  drew our attention to the portion in Annexure P-1 "While  allotting plots the right for allotment would be of the old  bhumidars only if their names are mentioned in the list".   According to him respondent No. 3 is not the old bhumidar.  The  learned counsel urged that under the Scheme the appellants  were entitled for the benefit, if any meaning is to be given to the  use of the words "old bhumidars" (Sabik Bhumidars) in Annexure  P-1.         Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3  argued that the Financial Commissioner, the learned single  Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have  correctly interpreted Annexure P-1 in holding that the benefit  was available under the Scheme to respondent No. 3.  He  pointed out specifically to the portion of the Scheme "However,  Bhumidars who were allotted preconsolidation area under 21(1)  and the same has been sold the purchasers would be entitled to  the aforesaid benefit".  In view of this proviso in Annexure P-1  no fault can be found with the impugned judgment.         We have carefully considered the submissions made by the  learned counsel for the parties.         The appellants were original bhumidars of land bearing  Khasra No. 324 in village Alipur.  This land was included in  Laldora.  Pursuant to their application the appellants were  allotted plot No. 679 in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 324,  which was accepted.  Thus the appellants ceased to have any  right or interest over the land No. 324 after accepting the plot  No. 679 in lieu of it as stated above.  It is thereafter the land  bearing Khasra No. 324 was allotted to respondent No. 4 in lieu  of his plot No. 1244, which was included in Laldora area.         It is better to notice material events to appreciate the  respective contentions.  The consolidation proceedings were  started in village Alipur under the Act in the year 1987.  The  Scheme of consolidation prepared under Section 19 of the Act  was confirmed under Section 20 of the Act by the Settlement  Officer on 24.7.1987 in respect of the said village.  The  respondent No. 4 was right-holder of the land in field No. 1244  of the said village.  This land was included in the phirni (Laldora)  when the original Scheme of consolidation came into force in the  year 1987.  He got the benefit of inclusion of this land in the  extended Laldora and was allotted three times area of  agricultural land of the pre-consolidation area comprising of  three field numbers given new Killa numbers during the  repartition, namely, 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22 (pre-consolidation  field No. 324) each measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas.   Thereafter, he sold his land Killa No. 28/22 to respondent No. 3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

in the year 1988.  Thus, the respondent No. 4 had availed the  benefit in lieu of inclusion of his land field No. 1244.  The  Scheme was amended on 24.7.1991, i.e., long after the  respondent No. 3 purchased the land Killa No. 28/22.  By the  amended Scheme of consolidation the Laldora was extended by  inclusion of land measuring 56 bighas and 6 biswas comprised in  various field numbers including No. 324.         From the events mentioned above, it is clear that the  appellants ceased to be the bhumidars of the field No. 324 from  the date they got the land field No. 679, which they accepted in  lieu of the land No. 324.  Thereafter, respondent No. 4 became  the owner of the Killa No. 28/22 (old Khasra No. 324) as it was  allotted to him in lieu of inclusion of his land No. 1244.  Further,  respondent No. 3 purchased the said land much later.  As on the  date of approval of the amended Scheme of consolidation the  respondent No. 3 was owner of this land having purchased it  under registered sale deed from respondent No. 4.         The Financial Commissioner in his order, looking to the  Hindi version of the amended Scheme (Annexure P-1), has  observed, thus: - "This controversy is set at rest by the reading  of the Hindi version of the amended scheme of  consolidation, which amplifies the position.  It  has been laid down therein that the Beshi  Phirni shall go to the original right holder  according to the original scheme.  However, in  cases the right holders who have transferred  the land after repartition under section 21(1)  of the Act, the benefit of Beshi Phirni shall  accrue to the purchaser.  Here, in this case,  admittedly the respondents No. 4,5 and 6 had  been allotted plot No. 679 during repartition in  lieu of Khasra No. 324.  They did not raise any  objection against this allotment.   Consequently, allotment of plot No. 679  became final.  It is also not the case of these  respondents that Khasra No. 324 had been  included within the extended phirni in the  original scheme of consolidation.  That being  so, their right to the benefit of Beshi Phirni  stood waived at that stage itself.  Killa No.  28/22 is admittedly the new number of pre- consolidation Khasra No. 324.  Allotment of  Killa No. 28/22 was made to Shri Dinesh  Kumar along with Killa Nos. 28/12 and 28/19  during repartition under Section 21(1) of the  Act in lieu of his pre-consolidation khasra No.  1244 which was consumed in the extended  phirni in pursuance of the original consolidation  scheme of the village and Dinesh Kumar was  given the benefit of Beshi phirni at the  moment.  Later on, the petitioner purchased  the land allotted to Dinesh Kumar under  Section 21(1) of the Act.  Now, out of the land  so purchased by the petitioner, Killa No. 28/22  has been included within the extended phirni  pursuant to the amended scheme of  consolidation.  Apparently, after allotment  under section 21(1) of the Act, Dinesh Kumar  transferred land to the amended scheme of  consolidation, the petitioner was the bhumidar  of Killa No. 28/22.  His case is fully covered  under the provisions of the amended scheme  which envisages categorically that in case of  the right-holder who transferred the land after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

repartition under section 21(1), the benefit of  Beshi phirni shall accrue to the purchaser.   Undisputedly, the petitioner was the bonafide  purchaser of Killa No. 28/22 at the relevant  time and as such he is fully entitled to the  benefit, as claimed by him."         Learned single Judge of the High Court in his order has  reproduced the operative portion of the order dated 25.3.1992  made by the Consolidation Officer, which reads: - "IN THE COURT OF THE CONSOLIDATION  OFFICER: DELHI Case No. 3097 to 3105/C.O. Village Alipur Date of Order: 25.3.92. During the consolidation proceedings in village  Alipur which were taken up in the year 1986,  some of the lands holders who were deprived  of their rights for residential plots as per their  demands, moved the court of the S.O.(C) and  some of them went to the Hon’ble Financial  Commissioner.  Their pleas for allotment of  residential plots were upheld by the S.O.(C)  and the Hon’ble F.C. respectively and the cases  were remitted back for allotment of residential  plots to the aggrieved persons in the extended  abadi. The scheme was amended u/s 36 of the Act  with a view to accommodate the demand  created for allotment of residential plots to the  above category of land holders who were  earlier denied residential plots and phirni who  extended for an area measuring 56 Big. 6 Bis.   on the Northern side.  The demand of majority  of persons who were to be allotted residential  plots was for the North or North West side.   However, an application dated 10.9.91 moved  by Jai Singh S/O Bharat Singh and six others  for extending the abadi in the South-East side  on the ground that their homes in the village  are situated in that side, thus asking for plots  near their houses.  It was not found feasible to  extend the phirni on the South-West side as  there are large number of built up structure  abutting the G.T. Road and the pre-extended  phirni, i.e. the Farm Road.  On the East side  there is no land as the pre-extended phirni  touches the G.T. Road." Learned single Judge, having regard to the findings of fact  recorded by the Financial Commissioner and also looking to the  amended Scheme as per Annexure P-1, rightly dismissed the  writ petition.         The Division Bench of the High Court, as is evident from  the impugned judgment, having looked into the order made by  the Financial Commissioner as well as by the learned single  Judge, did not find any error in the findings recorded by both of  them.  In the impugned judgment it is observed that "the rights  of the appellants in Plot No. 324 had come to an end the  moment they were allotted and accepted Plot No. 679 in the  extended Lal Dora.  Merely because there was a subsequent  amendment of the Consolidation Scheme, it does not mean that  the old rights get revived.  Once appellants accepted Plot No.  679 they had no further rights in Plot No. 324.  If Plot No. 324  now gets included in the amended scheme the benefit must go  to the purchaser.         It has been strenuously urged that to hold as above would  lead to an absurdity and/or that rules of interpretation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

statutes do not permit such an interpretation to be given.  In our  view a submission that a person who no longer has any right in  Plot No. 324 must still get benefit of the amendment is an  absurd submission.  To accept such a submission would lead to  unjustness and unfairness.  No rules of interpretation can permit  such an interpretation to be given.  We, therefore, see no reason  to interfere with the impugned judgment."         In view of what is stated above, we find it difficult to  accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that  they were entitled to the land in question only on the ground  that they were original bhumidars.  The Scheme Annexure P-1  must be read and understood in its entirety in the given  background.  If the argument of the learned counsel for the  appellants is to be accepted the proviso contained in Annexure  P-1 that "However, Bhumidars who were allotted  preconsolidation area under 21(1) and the same has been sold  the purchasers would be entitled to the aforesaid benefit", will be  meaningless or redundant.  Annexure P-1 cannot be read as a  statute.  Even a statute has to be read and understood  meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or  purpose it seeks to achieve.          In our view, the interpretation placed on Annexure P-1 by  the Financial Commissioner, as affirmed by the learned single  Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court, is a  correct interpretation.  The appellants having lost their rights  over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 and having got the land  No. 679 in lieu of it, do not have any right or interest over the  land bearing Khasra No. 324 so as to claim any benefit under the  amended Scheme as bhumidars when they no more remained  bhumidars on the relevant date and under Annexure P-1 the  benefit is to be given to persons, who lost their lands, to  compensate them.  The appellants did not lose any land under  the new Scheme on account of extended Laldora.  The original  bhumidar in relation to the land Killa No. 28/22 would be  respondent No. 4.         Thus, viewed from any angle no fault can be found with  the impugned judgment.  Hence, we find no merit in the appeal.   Consequently it is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.