Ram Mehar (Deceased) And Ors. vs Delhi Admn And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 751 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner and Financial Commissioner under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1953 ('DLRA') declining the petitioner's prayer for recording the ownership of the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 4 biswas out of Khasra No. 77/3/1/2 in Village Ladpur.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the petitioners own cultivated agricultural land in Village Ladpur, Delhi. It is stated that during the consolidation proceedings, which took place in Village Ladpur in 1954 under the East Punjab Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi the petitioners were allotted land to the extent of 1.10 biswas in Khasra No. 77/3/1/2. The petitioners claim that they continued in the possession of those lands till about 1.12.1980 when an order was passed by the then SDM, Kotwali at the instance of the Village Pradhan, directing that a part of the boundary wall on the said land be demolished for being used as a pathway and that the petitioners should be compensated by allotting them alternate land.

3. The precursor of the above orders passed by the SDM on 1.12.1980 was a representation dated 7.5.1980 made by the Gaon Sabha Ladpur alleging that the petitioner No. 1 herein had unauthorizedly taken possession of a throughfare leading to the Harijan Basti. It is stated that Shri J.P. Singh, the then SDM/Revenue Assistant conducted a spot inspection and found that the village road was blocked. Therefore, the SDM issued a Memorandum dated 1.12.1980 to the Tehsildar, Delhi advising him to get the encroachment removed. The SDM further observed that the Gaon Sabha had resolved to give land comprising of Khasra No. 77/3/2 measuring (1-16) to the petitioner No. 1 as compensation for clearing the above street and advised to Tehsildar, Delhi to make a note of the fact in the Revenue Record.

4. Simultaneously, the SDM in his capacity as Deputy Director (Panchayat) also initiated the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC for removal of the alleged encroachment.

5. Against the order dated 1.12.1980 passed by the SDM, the petitioner No. 1 filed a revision petition under Section 187 DLRA which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 7.7.1981 as non-maintainable with the observation that the impugned letter dated 1.12.1980 written by Shri J.P. Singh, SDM to the Tehsildar was only an administrative instruction and not revisable order.

6. On 22.6.1983, the SDM (Kotwali) passed a suo motu order directing the Tehsildar to get entries in the revenue record in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas comprising in Khasra No. 77/3/1/2 corrected in favor of the petitioners. In the said order it was observed that the alternative land promised to the petitioners was in fact never given to them. On 19.8.1983 the SDM set aside his earlier order dated 22.6.1983 on the ground that the said order was passed without hearing the Gaon Sabha.

7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.8.1983, the petitioner No. 1 herein filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. By an order dated 6.8.1984 the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for exploring a settlement between the parties with the observations that "in case the land which has been taken out from the petitioners not been put to use for pathway as alleged by the Gaon Sabha and mentioned in the order of the Revenue Assistant then it should be restored to them and in case it has been in use of pathway then double land should be given to the petitioners at a place which is convenient to them." Thereafter the Additional Collector once again considered the matter and by an order dated 16.10.1984 regretted his inability to bring about an acceptable settlement. The Additional Collector left the matter to be decided by the District Judge before whom the petition under Section 133 Cr.PC was pending.

8. The petitioners again approached the Financial Commissioner with a petition under Section 72 DLRA. By his order dated 25.3.1985, the Financial Commissioner reiterated that the "petitioners should be provided land out of the Gaon Sabha Khata double of the land taken from the petitioners according to their feasibility and convenience. The petitioners should not be allowed to suffer any more." The case was once again remanded to the Additional Collector. This time by an order dated 5.6.1985, the Additional Collector recorded the offer of the petitioners that instead of eight biswas of Gaon Sabha land in Khasra No. 8/52/2, the should be given four plots of 320 sq.m (about 7 biswas) on the road side in the area earmarked for landless persons under the new 20 point programme. However, the additional Collector rejected this offer as the plots on the roadside had not been developed and held that there was "no option but to make allotment of 8 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 8/25/2 situated adjoining to the holding of the petitioners in village Ladpur." He accordingly directed that land admeasurting 4 biswas in Kahsra No. 77/3/1/2 should be recorded as 'rasta' and the 8 biswas of land in Khasra No. 8/25/2 in favor of the petitioners.

9. For the fourth time the petitioners approached the Financial Commissioner with a revision petition under Section 72 DLRA seeking revival of the earlier orders passed by him on 6.8.19984 and 25.3.1985. This time the financial Commissioner rejected the petition by an order dated 25.7.1985 holding that there was no direction for allotment/and exchange of land out of the land earmarked for distribution to the landless persons. It was further observed by the Financial Commissioner that 'the Additional Commissioner had rightly ordered for the recording of Khasra No. 77/3/1/2 as rasta and 8 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 8/25/2 in the holding of the petitioners." Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

10. It is stated that when the order of the Financial Commissioner went against them, the petitioners were compelled to file a civil suit No. 1520/1985 for permanent injunction restraining the Gaon Sabha from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the petitioners of the land measuring 1-10 Biswas in Khasra No. 77/3/1/2 in Village Ladpur. The Gaon Sabha contested the suit and filed a written statement, but remained absent thereafter. By an ex parte judgment dated 19.5.1986 the Sub-Judge, Delhi held that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff with their being declared Bhumidar and in possession of the same. It was further held that "the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since last twenty years which is bounded by boundary walls and that there is no public path way between the suit land." Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted directing the defendants "not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 1 bighas 10 biswas situated in Khasra No. 77/3/1/2 in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur and also not to demolish the boundary walls constructed thereon."

11. On the basis of the above judgment, the petitioners again filed an application before the Additional Collector for correction of the records. Without referring to the judgment of the Civil Court, a copy of which was produced before him, the Additional Collector by an order 15.10.1987 rejected the application saying that the matter already stood concluded by the earlier orders passed by the revenue authorities. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Financial Commission on 18.11.1987 stating that there was no error committed by the Additional Collector warranting interference under Section 72 DLRA. As regards the decree of the Civil Court, the Financial Commissioner held:

The case of the petitioners is that they should be restored of 4 biswas of land and the records be corrected, in terms of the civil court decree. The implementation of the decree involves dispossession from land, as such, the decree of the civil court can be executable under the orders of the same court or any other executing court. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order of the Additional Collector. It stands confirmed. The revision as directed stands dismissed.

The petitioners thereafter filed the present writ petition.

12. The contention of the petitioners here is that the decree of the Civil Court having conclusively held that their title of suit lands stood established, the revenue authorities were bound by the said decree and were obliged to correct the entries in the revenue records.

13. In the instant case, the orders passed by the revenue authorities from time to time do not unequivocally hold that the lands in question stand in the name of Gaon Sabha. On the contrary, in the order dated 24.12.1982 passed by the Tehsildar it was observed that the basis on which the revenue records were changed by the earlier order dated 1.12.1980 of the SDM did not exist as "one Ilaqua Patwari kept on expressing his own views and misused his powers from time to time because no orders either from any court or from the department were ever sent to him on the basis of which he made the changes." It was, accordingly, held that the entry made in favor of the Gaon Sabha in respect of such land should be reversed. It was further observed that: "Therefore, it appears that after seeing the whole situation that though error has been committed but it is better to seek orders from learned SDM, RA or ADM (R). Therefore, application is sent for further and necessary orders." When the case was thereafter examined by the SDM he too found that the order dated 1.12.1980 by his predecessor had not been made under any provision of the DLRA. Therefore by order dated 22.6.1983 he directed the correction of the entries to show the petitioners as owners of the lands in question. Thereafter a series of orders were passed by which the case kept getting shunted between the Additional Collector and Financial Commissioner.

14. A reading of the various orders passed by the aforementioned two authorities show that the petitioners were being virtually compelled to accept alternate land in exchange for the land recorded erroneously in the name of the Gaon Sabha which had no statutory backing. Not one of the orders hold the land as belonging to the Gaon Sabha and yet the authorities were reluctant to rectify the obvious error. In these circumstances, the petitioners can hardly be held to be at fault in not agreeing to the exchange of land.

15. The order dated 5.6.1985 passed by the Additional Collector appears to be an exercise in expediency. It acknowledges that the land was taken away from the petitioners and they were offered double land in a different Khasra No. 8/25/2 situated adjacent to the holding of the petitioners, which was not acceptable by the petitioners. However, the Additional Collector erroneously concluded that he had no option but to record the alternative land in the name of the petitioners and their lands as a 'rasta'. Such an order had no legal basis whatsoever. The Financial Commissioner too erred in upholding this order.

16. The two authorities again erred in refusing to abide by the judgment of the Civil Court which had attained finality and which had categorically held that the plaintiffs in the said suit, i.e. the petitioners herein, were the owners of the lands in question. The recording of the names of the petitioners in the Khasra Girdwari in respect of the suit lands was only a consequential step that had to be taken by these very authorities. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in relegating the petitioners to execution proceedings for this purpose.

17. For the above reasons, the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Additional Collector dated 18.11.1987 and 25.7.1985 respectively are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to correct the entries in the record of rights to show 4 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 77/3/1/2, Village Ladpur as belonging to the petitioners and through them to the legal representatives who have been brought on record in this writ petition. The respondents will not dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question except according to procedure established by law.

18. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. The pending application stands disposed of.