V. Kameswar Rao JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated September 24, 2015 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 262/2015 whereby the learned Financial Commissioner has dismissed the Revision Petition upholding the order dated July 24, 2015 passed by the Dy. Commissioner/Collector (South-West) in an Appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated May 27, 2015 of SDM/RA, Kapashera.
2. Some of the facts are, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 20/1/1/3, 9/2, 10/1, 10/2 and 12/1 total measuring about 12 bighas and 12 biswa situated in the Revenue Estate of village Raghopur, Delhi, erected a boundary wall and two rooms for chowkidar and agricultural labour. On June 23, 2012, Halka Patwari made a report alleging non agricultural use of the land, which resulted in Case No. RA/134/2012 titled Gaon Sabha, Raghopur v. Hyacinth Estate Pvt. Ltd. having been initiated under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act in short). Notice was served upon the petitioner on May 18, 2013. On June 5, 2013, written statement was filed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that it had taken objection that the notice served was a simple notice to appear, whereas the DLR Act requires, a notice in LR Form No. 48 be served before initiating proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act. It is the case of the petitioner that it had, in its written statement has stated that the suit land was being continuously used for agricultural purposes and filed khasra Girdawari of the year 2011-2012 showing cultivation. It was further pleaded that the land had a boundary wall and two small rooms. One room was near the gate for the chowkidar and the other room was a small labour hut/tube well room. It was pleaded that the rooms were an improvement to the holding and the same were built over a miniscule portion of land measuring about 2 biswa out of total land measuring more than 2.5 acres and the entire remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on February 19, 2014 and March 10, 2014, land was inspected by Halka Patwari wherein in the report, it was stated that the crop is being sown in the land. It is the case of the petitioner, despite the report, the proceedings still continued. The petitioner has stated that on April 30, 2014 the learned RA/SDM suggested to the petitioner that the height of boundary wall was about 7 feet and the violation thereof can be cured. On August 01, 2014, upon instructions, the counsel for the petitioner gave a statement agreed to reduce the height of boundary wall to 4.5 feet, to which the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha also gave no objection. Accordingly, the petitioner reduced the height of boundary wall to 4.5 feet. On August 25, 2014, the petitioner filed photographs with regard to reduced height of the wall. It is the case of the petitioner that upon being satisfied that their exist no violation, the case was reserved for passing of orders as the only alleged violation was cured. However, before the orders could be passed, the concerned RA/SDM was transferred and a new Officer took over. It is stated that when the case came up before learned RA/SDM on May 27, 2015 it was ordered that a fresh status report may be called from Halka Patwari about the permanent structures on the site and about the height of boundary wall but the learned RA/SDM went on to direct, as the conditional order has not been issued, a conditional order be issued. A conditional order was passed on the same day i.e., May 27, 2015 wherein, it ........