* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 203 of 2011
Brij Kishore Tyagi & Ors. ....Appellants
Through Mr. K.K. Tyagi & Mr. Iftikhar, Advs.
VERSUS
NCT of Delhi & Ors. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Addl. Standing
Counsel for GNCT of Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 01.03.2011 LPA No. 203/2011 & CM No.4392/2011 (for directions) Drawing our attention to the impugned order dated 20th January, 2011 and observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh vs. A.D.M.(Revenue) & Others., 57(1995) DLT 547(DB) and LPA 203/2011 Page 1 of 5 the learned Single Judge in Shri Ram Phal & Another vs. B.S. Bhalla & Ors., 112(2004) DLT 193. It is submitted that the whole issue including the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 788/2010, Shri Bhagmal & Ors. vs. Gaon Sabha Aya Nagar &Ors., requires reconsideration.
2. We do not agree. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was examining the question whether by a notification six categories of land could be excluded from the operation of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 (the Act and Rules, for short) by giving it a colour of an amendment to the Rules. This Court did not agree and the writ was allowed. Accordingly, amendment to Form P.5 was quashed and the respondent revenue authority was directed to maintain record of rights, including the annual register in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2000) 5 SCC 452.
3. In the present case, the respondent Gaon Sabha has initiated proceedings under Section 86A of the Act for ejectment. The appellant LPA 203/2011 Page 2 of 5 has also initiated proceedings under Section 85 of the Act claiming bhumidhari rights. Two proceedings are pending. Initiation of ejectment proceedings under Section 86A of the Act by the Gaon Sabha, implies that the respondents admit that the land is in possession of a third party and the Gaon Sabha is not in occupation/possession. Therefore, the petition for ejectment and possession. The right of the parties shall considered and decided in the said proceedings. It is keeping in view the aforesaid factors; that in LPA 788/2010, vide order dated 9th November, 2010, in identical circumstances, it has been observed/directed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded to that till the matter is finally decided by the competent authority under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, no steps shall be taken to dispossess the appellants from the occupation in question.
In our considered opinion, the matter has to be adjudicated by the competent authority under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 which shall also determine the status of the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, we may hasten to clarify that the non-granting of relief by the learned LPA 203/2011 Page 3 of 5 Single Judge and our non-interference would not come in the way of adjudication proceeding which has been initiated under Sections 85 and 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents - Gaon Sabha, has made a similar statement and the respondents are bound by the said statement. It will be also open to the appellants to file an application before the revenue authorities stating that they continue to remain in possession. In case any application is filed, the same will be entertained by the revenue authorities and disposed of in accordance with law. The respondent authority will not refuse to accept the applications.
5. The judgment in the case of Ram phal (supra) is distinguishable. In the said case, the Court was dealing with contempt proceedings and allegation was that there was willful disobedience of the judgment in the case of Balbir Singh (supra). In the said case, it was noticed that the proceedings under Section 86A of the Act were initiated in or around August, 2000 much after the judgment. It is not very clear but probably the revenue entries which were subject matter in Ramphal's case (supra) related to the period prior to 2000. The said judgment LPA 203/2011 Page 4 of 5 specifically records that ejectment of an unauthorized or illegal person can only be effected by resort to these Sections and not by the device of refusing to record the name of the person in actual possession. In the present case ejectment proceedings under Section 86A of the Act have been initiated.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE March 01, 2011 KKB LPA 203/2011 Page 5 of 5