W.P.(C) 14095/2023 Page 1 of 5 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14095/2023 MOOLCHAND AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. The Petitioners seek directions concerning land situated in the revenue estate of Village Alipur, Delhi, which, according to them, was cultivated by their predecessors and was subsequently included in consolidation proceedings. 2. The case set up in the amended writ petition is that late Mr. Jhunda was in cultivatory possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 807 min. and 812 min., measuring one bigha each. After his death, the land is stated to have been cultivated by his widow, Ms. Chameli, and his sons, Mr. Hukum Singh, Mr. Pratap Singh, Mr. Mool Chand and Mr. Dharampal. 3. The Petitioners rely upon a consolidation khatauni pertaining to Khewat No. 537 and Khatauni No. 138. The said record describes the land as “Shamlat Deh” in the column relating to the bhumidhar and records the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:45:08 W.P.(C) 14095/2023 Page 2 of 5 Petitioners’ predecessors as “Asamis” in respect of Khasra Nos. 807 min and 812 min, total admeasuring two bighas. Reliance is also placed upon a consolidation passbook issued in their names. 4. According to the Petitioners, consolidation proceedings commenced in Village Alipur in the year 1987-88 and concluded in December, 2019. They allege that, although the land cultivated by their predecessors was included in the consolidation exercise, no corresponding land was allotted and no compensation was paid. 5. The record further indicates that one of the Petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the post- consolidation identity and status of the aforesaid land. In the response placed on record, the authorities stated that old Khasra No. 807 corresponded to new Khasra No. 623 and old Khasra No. 812 corresponded to new Khasra Nos. 633 and 634. The Petitioners were also afforded an opportunity to inspect the land records. 6. Separately, the Petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities seeking implementation of an order dated 24th April, 1970 passed by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi. As noticed in the order dated 28th April, 2023, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, the said order had recorded the Petitioners’ predecessors to be in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 812, measuring two bighas, and directed necessary correction in the revenue record. 7. The Financial Commissioner disposed of the revision petition on the ground that Village Alipur had been urbanised by a notification dated 16th May, 2017 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:45:08 W.P.(C) 14095/2023 Page 3 of 5 Singh (Dead) through LRs & Anr. v. Narain Singh & Ors1, the Financial Commissioner held that proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 could not continue after urbanisation. The Financial Commissioner, however, expressly clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case. 8. The writ petition, as originally instituted, assailed the order dated 28th April, 2023. By order dated 31st October, 2023, the Petitioners were granted time to consider amendment of the petition. CM APPL. 19132/2024 seeking amendment was thereafter allowed on 1st April, 2024. 9. In the amended writ petition, the prayer seeking quashing of the order of the Financial Commissioner has been deleted. The Petitioners now seek, first, disclosure of the particulars of the land dealt with during consolidation and, second, allotment of alternative land or payment of compensation. 10. In view of the amended prayers, the validity of the order dated 28th April, 2023 does not arise for adjudication. The continued reference to that order in the grounds of the amended petition cannot substitute for a substantive prayer seeking its annulment. 11. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, the Petitioners are entitled to seek inspection and copies of the official record relating to the consolidation of the land claimed by them. The response furnished under the Right to Information Act itself indicates that the relevant register, jamabandi and field book were available and that inspection had been offered. 12. The relief seeking alternative land or compensation, however, cannot be granted on the basis of the present record. Consolidation is a process of reorganisation and redistribution of existing holdings; it does not, by itself, 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:45:08 W.P.(C) 14095/2023 Page 4 of 5 amount to acquisition of land by the State. An entitlement to alternative land or compensation must emerge from the applicable consolidation scheme, the statement of valuation, the repartition proceedings and the final orders made by the competent authorities. 13. None of those foundational documents has been placed before the Court. There is no final order of repartition or allotment identifying the holding, if any, allotted to the Petitioners’ predecessors; nor is there any order determining that they were entitled to compensation on account of having received land of lesser value. The precise character of their rights also requires examination, since the consolidation khatauni relied upon by them records “Shamlat Deh” in the bhumidhar column and their predecessors as “Asamis” in respect of the land in question. 14. A writ of mandamus for allotment of land or payment of compensation can issue only upon establishment of a subsisting legal right and a corresponding obligation upon the authority. The material presently placed before the Court does not establish such an entitlement. Adjudication of the claim would require determination of the nature of the Petitioners’ predecessors’ rights, the manner in which those rights were dealt with during consolidation, the post-consolidation identity of the land and the effect of the final scheme and repartition proceedings. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings on the basis of the limited and disputed material before the Court. 15. Nevertheless, to enable the Petitioners to ascertain the fate of the land and pursue such remedy as may be available in law, the concerned Respondent authority, through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipur, is directed to permit the Petitioners, or their duly authorised representative, to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:45:08 W.P.(C) 14095/2023 Page 5 of 5 inspect the available consolidation record pertaining to Khewat No. 537, Khatauni No. 138 and old Khasra Nos. 807 min and 812 min. 16. Upon an application being made by the Petitioners, the authority shall also furnish, upon payment of the prescribed charges, certified copies of the available record. The exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date on which the Petitioners approach the concerned authority with a copy of this order. 17. In case any part of the record is unavailable, the competent authority shall communicate the said fact in writing to the Petitioners, specifying the record searched and the authority or office which, according to the official record, is its custodian. 18. The prayer seeking a direction for payment of compensation or allotment of alternative land is declined. The Petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available before the competent authority or forum, in accordance with law. All questions relating to the nature of their rights, limitation, maintainability and entitlement are left open. 19. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 17, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:45:08