Skip to content


Mehar Ghand and anr. Vs. Ram Parwar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRevision Petition Appeal No. 114 of 1982
Judge
Reported in23(1983)DLT509
ActsDelhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Sections 72
AppellantMehar Ghand and anr.
RespondentRam Parwar and anr.
Advocates: Mahipal Singh, Adv
Excerpt:
- - the judgment of the civil court as referred to in the petition as well as in the order of the revenue assistant shows that the respondents filed suit no. the implementation of the decree conveys no right to any party and anyone who is not satisfied with the attempt of the revenue authorities to interpret the terms of the civil court decree, can have recourse to a civil court......land revenue act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the act against the order dated 28-1-1982 of the revenue assistant whereby he ordered correction of entries in pursuance of the order of the civil court dated 17-3-1981 regarding certain pieces of land situated within the revenue estate of village ladpur, delhi as incorporated in the first paragraph of the petition. (2) i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and gone through the papers annexed with the petition for revision. (3) after hearing arguments the main point for consideration is whether the learned revenue assistant is justified not to go behind the decision of the civil court and in his attempt proceeded to implement the order of the civil court in conformity with the observations contained.....
Judgment:

D.K. Das, J.

(1) This is a petition for revision under Section 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order dated 28-1-1982 of the Revenue Assistant whereby he ordered correction of entries in pursuance of the order of the civil court dated 17-3-1981 regarding certain pieces of land situated within the revenue estate of village Ladpur, Delhi as incorporated in the first paragraph of the petition.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and gone through the papers annexed with the petition for revision.

(3) After hearing arguments the main point for consideration is whether the learned Revenue Assistant is justified not to go behind the decision of the Civil Court and in his attempt proceeded to implement the order of the civil court in conformity with the observations contained therein.

(4) It appears that the land detailed in paragraph I of the petition for revision was purchased by the respondents. The judgment of the civil court as referred to in the petition as well as in the order of the Revenue Assistant shows that the respondents filed suit No. 473/ 80 for permanent injunction before the civil court. The civil court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. Later on the present respondent moved to the Revenue Assistant with a copy of the civil court order who ordered its implementation in conformity with the judgment of the civil court.

(5) The general principle is that the Revenue Assistant dealing with the case should always accept the decree of the civil court and act upon it; it is not his business to enquire whether it is a right or wrong nor it is possible for him to go behind the decision of the courts and re-open matters or entertain fresh evidence on question which has already been decided by competent judicial authorities. He however should decline to go behind a plain language of a decree. He should not question the propriety of the decree or order of civil court though that may be exparte or otherwise. Such an order is binding on the parties. Even an apparent absurdity in the decree of the civil court has no ground for refusing to recognise. It is however observed that while revenue officer should normally give effect the decree of the civil court without question, yet the order mult be clear and free from ambiguity, and that Revenue Officer are not bound to give effect to the decrees which arc so vague as to prove to be difficult to interpretation. However in this case I find that the civil court has allowed relief to the respondents and the findings of the court arc clear and there is no justification for the Revenue Officer to go behind that decision. The implementation of the decree conveys no right to any party and anyone who is not satisfied with the attempt of the Revenue Authorities to interpret the terms of the civil court decree, can have recourse to a civil court.

(6) In view of the aforesaid reasons I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Revenue Assistant had acted upon the decree illegally. I hereby order that the implementation of the order/decree shall remain intact. In these circumstance I do not find any ground to admit the present revision for regular hearing. It is hereby dismissed at admission stage.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //