Bhagat Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3304 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                             Date of decision: 16.07.2010



+               WP (C) No.4687/2010 and CM Nos.9270-72/2010


BHAGAT SINGH & ORS.                                             ...PETITIONERS

                Through:        Mr.Ram Singh Soni, Advocate

                                         Versus


UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                           ...RESPONDENTS


                Through:        Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for R-1.
                                Mr.Najmi Waziri, Advocate for R-2.


CORAM:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                             No

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              No

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?                                         No


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

CM No.9271/2010

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) No.4687/2010

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that their

forefathers were in exclusive, constructive and actual _____________________________________________________________________________________________

physical possession of part of Khasra No.1865 measuring

102 Bighas and 9 Biswas (Abadi) forming part of the

Revenue Estate of Village Bhaati Kalan. Out of the total

land, the petitioners claim rights in respect of 72 Bighas and

9 Biswas arising much prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act,

1954 („the said Act‟ for short) coming into force. The

petitioners allege that R-1 and R-2 came to demolish a part

of the structure on the land in question on 28.06.2010 but

by physical resistance the petitioners and the other villagers

were able to prevent R-1 and R-2 from taking any action.

The petitioners preferred Civil Writ Petition No.4677/2010

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief

of protection of their properties, but this writ petition was

dismissed on 09.07.2010 by a speaking order. The said

speaking order has not been placed on record and thus we

are unaware of the reasoning of the dismissal of the earlier

writ petition.

2. Now the present writ petition has been filed seeking

quashing of the Notification dated 04.04.1996 published in

the Delhi Gazette in terms whereof the land of the Gaon

Sabha falling in the „Ridge‟ area was declared as surplus

land and excluded from vesting in the Gaon Sabha. It would

be appropriate to reproduce the Notification which reads as

under:

" Part IV Notifications of the Departments of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Administration other than Notifications included in Part-I _____________________________________________________________________________________________

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI Revenue Department Notification Delhi, 2 April 1996

No.F1(29)/PA/DC/96 - Whereas the Supreme Court of India in IA Nos.18 and 22 in Writ Petition No.4677/1985 M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and Ors in their orders dated 25.01.1996 and 13.03.1996 have directed the un-cultivated surplus land of Gaon Sabha falling in „Ridge‟ may be excluded from vesting in Gaon Sabha under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and made available for the purpose of creation of Reserved Forest.

Now therefore in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby declares the cultivated lands of Gaon Sabha specified in column III and Annexure-A to N annexed hereto, situated in Southern Range in respect of Villages mentioned in Column II of table given below as surplus land and excludes the same from vesting in Gaon Sabha and further places the said land at the disposal of Forest Department of Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi.

ANNEXURE-K (1 to 7 pages)

VILLAE BHATTI, TEHSIL MEHRAULI, GAON SABHA LAND UNDER RIDGE NOTIFIED AREA

Khasra No. Area Remarks ........ ...... ........

                   1865                         102-9                   ABAADI
                   ........                         ......                      ........

                   Total                        11101-19"

3. It is thus apparent to us from the aforesaid Notification that

it is in pursuance to the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court that uncultivated surplus land falling in the „Ridge‟

area was declared as surplus and excluded from vesting in

the Gaon Sabha being placed at the disposal of the Forest

Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while in

other villages after the declaration of land as Abadi Area, _____________________________________________________________________________________________

additional lands were declared as extended abadi area but

no such exercise was undertaken in the case of the

petitioners‟ village and thus the requirement of the village

has not been taken into account while declaring the land

surplus in terms of Section 154 of the said Act. The

submission thus is that the exercise in pursuance to proviso

to Section 154 (1) has not been carried out. Section 154(1)

reads as under:

154. Vesting of certain lands etc, in Gaon Sabha. -

[(1)] On the commencement of this Act -

(i) All lands whether cultivable or otherwise, except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove,

(ii) All trees (other than trees in a holding or on the boundary thereof or in a grove or abadi) [(Note: Ins. by s.16 of Delhi Act of 1956) or planted by a person other than a proprietor on land other than land comprised in his holding],

(iii) Public wells,

(iv) Fisheries,

(v) Hats, bazaar and meals, except hats, bazaar and meals held on land to which provisions of clauses (a) to

(c) of sub- section (1) of section 11 apply,

(vi) Tanks, ponds, water channels, pathways and abadi sites,

(vii) Forest, if any.

Situate in a Gaon Sabha Area, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha :

Provided that if the uncultivated area situate in any Gaon Sabha area is, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner, more than the ordinary requirements of the Gaon Sabha, he may exclude any portion of the uncultivated area from vesting in the Gaon Sabha , he may exclude any portion of the uncultivated area from vesting in the Gaon Sabha under this section and may

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

make such incidental and consequential order as may be necessary."

5. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to show us

the documents by which his forefathers or they came into

settled lawful possession of the land in question which

belonged to the Gaon Sabha. There is no such document

on record. This question was posed as Gaon Sabha land is

for the collective enjoyment of the village and there is no

right in any individual to occupy the land unless such an

allotment is made by the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha

land is thus not meant for individuals for their own

enjoyment and the vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha is as

per Section 7 of the said Act. The significance of the said

Act coming into force was that all lands of common utilities

which were owned by the proprietors of villages and which

were commonly used by the villagers were vested in the

Goan Sabha and proprietors were divested of their

ownership. As per Section 154(1) (vii) of the said Act, all the

forest land situated in a Gaon Sabha area shall vest in the

Gaon Sabha. The proviso to Section 154(1) of the said Act

refers really to the uncultivated area situated in Gaon Sabha

area and the same being more than the ordinary

requirement of the Gaon Sabha may be excluded from

vesting in the Gaon Sabha.

6. We are of the considered view that no further exercise was

necessary to be carried out by the R-1 and R-2 in case of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

such Gaon Sabha land which was actually part of „Ridge‟

area and it is with the objective of protecting the „Ridge‟

area that the land in question which forms part of the

„Ridge‟ area was declared surplus and was placed at the

disposal of the Forest Department of the Govt. of NCT of

Delhi for creation of Reserved Forest.

7. In our considered view, the petitioners are only encroachers

on Government land who are seeking to prevent vesting of

the land in question with the appropriate Government

authority and possibly physically preventing the

Government from taking over possession of the same. The

petition has been filed 14 years after the notification in

question was issued and the only reason given in this regard

is that the petitioners had no knowledge of the same.

8. Learned counsel for R-1 and R-2 states that the forest area

is being fenced and 80 per cent of the work is complete, but

physical resistance is being faced from people of the

villages - Bhatti, Dera and Maandi. It is also stated that a

similar issue was raised in WPC No.4362/2007 Nav Yuwak

Gram Vikas Samiti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided

on 27.08.2009, in respect of three of the other villages.

The LPA No.579/2009 filed against that order also really did

not succeed, but the original petitioners were given liberty

to approach the Supreme Court for any clarification, if they

so desired.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

9. We find the present writ petition is a gross abuse of the

process of Court and the same is dismissed with costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

CM No.9270/2010 (for Stay) CM No.9272/2010 (for Appointment of LC)

Dismissed.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

JULY 16, 2010                                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
dm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________