Delhi High Court
Jag Mal Singh & Others vs Gaon Sabha Tiggipur, Delhi & ... on 10 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2/2007
JAG MAL SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. D.V. Khatri, advocate.
versus
GAON SABHA TIGGIPUR, DELHI, & ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Ms.Bandana
Shukla, advocates for R.1-3.
Mr.Ashish Ruchela, advocate for counsel for
intervenor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 10.03.2010
1. In view of the limited controversy involved in the present Writ
Petition, I need not discuss the facts in detail.
2. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents are not
recording entries in khasra girdawari as required under the provisions
of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the
Revenue Act, for short). It is the obligation of the respondent-revenue
authority to make entries recording possession in khasra girdawari
under the provisions of the Revenue Act in view of the decision of the
Delhi High Court in Balbir Singh and ors versus ADM (Revenue)
and others 57 (1995) DLT 547 (DB).
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue authorities
that recording of entries will adversely affect the pending proceedings
under Sections 85 and 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is
misconceived. The said proceedings have to be decided on the basis of
the cause of action and rights of the parties when the proceedings
were initiated. Rights which have accrued and proceedings once
WPC No.2/2007 Page 1
initiated are not affected by subsequent entries in the revenue records
for future years. If an eviction order under Section 86A of Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954 is passed, the same is not invalid or a nullity
because of subsequent revenue entries of possession. The
proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are determined
and decided on the basis of rights of the parties and facts existing on
the date when petitions were filed and not on the basis of subsequent
entries under the Revenue Act.
4. In case there is further encroachment by the petitioner, it is open
to the respondent-revenue authorities to take appropriate action in
accordance with law and remove the said encroachment. If any further
cause of action has arisen, the respondents can initiate action as per
law.
5. Application-C.M. No. 8454/2009 has been filed on behalf of
Mr.Virender Singh Rajput. It is open to the said applicant to make claim
before the revenue authorities in respect of his rights. This Court is not
adjudicating or deciding the said application or inter se disputes
between the applicant and the petitioner herein.
6. As per the affidavit filed by Government of NCT of Delhi,
proceedings under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
were initiated against the petitioner and ejectment Order dated 11th
October, 1982 was passed. The said ejectment order was quashed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1607/1983 with the direction that the
revenue assistant would proceed further on the basis of another notice
issued under Section 86A of the said Act. The said proceedings have
remained pending. The revenue assistant will ensure that the
proceedings under Section 86A are disposed of expeditiously and
preferably within six months from today.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 10, 2010
P/VKR
WPC No.2/2007 Page 2
