Central Reserve Police Force vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 272 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, an appropriate writ to set aside the order dated 21st December 2001 passed by the Financial Commissioner in relation to certain lands occupied by the petitioner, have been impugned.

2. That the petitioner (hereafter referred to as 'CRPF') was handed over the lands in question, namely, Khasra No. 367 (to the extent of 1 Bigha 1 Biswa) and Khasra No. 369 (to the extent of 12 Biswas), Andheria More, Revenue Estate and Tehsil Mehrauli, be DDA. The second respondent raised a dispute sometime in 1997 and filed an application under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, (''The Act''). The impugned order upheld the view taken by the Revenue Assistant that the suit lands though in the occupation of the CRPF did not belong to it.

3. The proceedings leading to culminating in the order impugned here were initiated at the instance of respondent No.2, who claimed that he was the owner and the CRPF had trespassed / encroached upon the said suit lands.

4. The record would disclose that the lands in question were sold on 17.10.1965 when one Sardar Sarbinder Singh purchased it. The sale certificate was issued in that regard on 17th October 1962, followed by a corrigendum dated 16.02.1972. A mutation was effected in his favor thereafter. The respondent No.2/applicant before the lower authorities, claims to have purchased lands including the suit property sometime in the year 1990; he bases this on a sale deed dated 12.10.1990. The second respondent (who has filed a counter affidavit in these proceedings) also states that he had been corresponding with the CRPF since 1994 for vacating the land, and that eventually he filed proceedings against CRPF under Section 84, of the Act.

5. The second respondent's application was disposed on 22.10.1998, by the Revenue Assistant on the basis of a demarcation report. CRPF appealed, to the Additional Collector, alleging that it never agreed to the demarcation. The appeal was rejected on 8th September 2000; the Petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 187 of the Act. By the impugned order dated 21.12.2001, the Financial Commissioner concurred with findings of the Revenue Assistant and those of the Additional Collector, and rejected the Revision Petition.

6. The grievance of the petitioner CRPF is that the demarcation conducted in the proceedings was done without proper records and identification and the objections of CRPF were ignored. It also submits that the Act has no application, in view of Section 1(2)(b).

7. During pendency of these proceedings, by order dated 5.2.2004, it was recorded, that the suit property was notified for acquisition. The order records the statement of the second respondent that the acquisition proceedings had been impugned in a writ petition.

8. The petitioner's counsel submits that a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24th February 2004, upheld the acquisitions in so far as they related to the suit property. That petition was filed by Respondent No.2. It would be useful to extract he factual narrative noticed by the Court which is as follows:

''As per the averments made in the writ petition, subject land was sold by the Government in public auction sometime in the year 1962 when one Sardar Sarbinder Singh purchased it in the said auction. Sale certificate was issued in his favor on 17.10.1996 followed by corrigendum dated 16.02.1972 and mutation was sanctioned in his name in the revenue records by the revenue authorities on 18.03.1988. However, as this land was illegally occupied by the CRPF, Sardar Sarbinder Singh issued legal notice dated 19.7.1988 to Lt.Governor, Land and Building Department, DDA and Commandant, CRPF. Significantly in this notice it was stated that the land was occupied in the year 1980 illegally and unauthorisedly and the addressees were called upon to acquire the said land within the statutory period. However, the respondents did not pay any heed to this notice. On 12.10.1990 the petitioner purchased this land from Sardar Sarbinder Singh by registered sale deed. When the land in question was not vacated, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act on 23.2.1988 in the Court of SDO/Revenue Assistant, Mehrauli. There is vast area of land, contiguous to this land in question, which is in occupation of CRPF and which was acquired earlier and placed at the disposal of CRPF. It appears that while taking possession of the said land CRPF occupied the land in question also under the impression that this land was also part of the land possession of which was handed over to CRPF earlier. It was in these circumstances, the Court of Revenue Assistant in the aforesaid proceedings ordered demarcation and in the demarcation it was found that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and not the CRPF. This resulted in passing order dated 2.10.1988 by the Revenue Assistant to the effect that CRPF was illegally occupying the land. Appeal filed by CRPF was dismissed. Further appeal filed by the CRPF in the court of Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 23.11.2001. The CRPF filed Writ Petition No.2692/2002 against the decision of the Financial Commissioner which is pending in this Court.''

9. The Division Bench was of the view that the possession was with the petitioner herein, namely, CRPF since 1980 and that when proceedings were initiated before the Revenue Courts, respondent No.2 woke up and started claiming the lands. The Court satisfied itself by perusing the records relating to acquisition and after considering the relevant contentions of the second respondent, it rejected the petition leading to the upholding of the said acquisition proceedings.

10. It would be significant to notice that respondent No.2, who initiated the proceedings leading to the present petition, never objected to the acquisition of lands. Division Bench recorded that as follows :

''That apart, Mr. Poddar has also raised a valid preliminary submission to the effect that the petitioner did not file any objections under Section 5A of the Act pursuant to the notification dated 7.5.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of such objections it is not permissible for him to file the present petition as held in the case of Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others, .''

11. The Court was therefore of the opinion that the petition was devoid of merit and that in any event, the second respondent was entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

12. The purpose for which the land in question has been acquired, is stated to be ''Public purpose namely for CRPF Camp under planned development of Delhi''. It has not been disputed by the parties during proceedings here as well as in the proceedings before the Division Bench where the acquisition proceedings were under examination, that possession is in fact with the CRPF.

13. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that the factual basis upon which the impugned orders were passed under the Act no longer exist. The suit lands, in my opinion, would fall within the description of lands that re excluded from the purview of the Act, by reason of Section 1(2)(b). Subsection (2) of Section 1 lists areas that stand excluded from the Act; sub-clause (b) excluded areas ''included in any estate owned by the Central Government or any local authority''

14. As noticed earlier, the petitioner did not object to the acquisition of the suit lands.

15. In view of the above, the impugned order as also the orders of the Revenue Assistant and Additional Collector cannot be sustained. The petition is accordingly allowed. The orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure-4) and the orders of the Additional Collector dated 08.09.2000 in Case No.11/ADM(S)/99 as well as the order passed by the Revenue Assistant on 22.10.1998 in respect of the suit property are hereby set aside.

16. In view of the above directions , it is open to the petitioner to move the Revenue Assistant for appropriate orders.

17. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.