Delhi High Court
Chand Ram & Others vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 16 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
32.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10187-89/2006
CHAND RAM & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Prakash Gautam, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No. 4-
DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 16.03.2010
1. The petitioners have approached Court for lapse and failure on the part of the
respondents to demarcate and furnish details of total land falling in khasra No. 875,
village Bahpur, Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have bhumidhari
rights in 6 biswa of land in the said khasra which has not been acquired.
2. It is stated that khasra No. 875, village Bahpur, Delhi consisted of 20 bigha 12
biswa of land, out of which 6 biswa of land is still to be acquired. In this connection,
learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon report of patwari dated 17th August, 1998
in which it is stated that 6 biswa of land in khasra No. 879 belongs to the petitioners and
is still to be acquired.
3. The respondents have filed before this Court affidavit of Mr. M.P. Shah, Naib
Tehsildar, Kalkaji, East District enclosing therewith joint survey report dated 10th
December, 2008. As per the said survey report, according to the field book about 9 biswa
of land were transferred and reloacated in khasra No. 879 and accordingly land in khasra
No. 875 got reduced to 20 bigha and 12 biswa. The said survey report relies upon misal
hakiyat 1908-09 and jamabandi 1913-14 in which the total land in khasra No. 875 has
been shown as measuring 20 bigha and 12 biswa.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, disputes the said
WPC No.10187-89/2006 Page 1
survey/demarcation report and has filed an affidavit dated 9th April, 2009. He also relies
upon field book of khasra No. 875 for the year 1908-09 and jamabandi for the year 1945-
46.
5. It is apparent that there is a demarcation or boundary dispute between the
petitioners and the respondent. The dispute is factual and requires examination of
revenue records. It will be appropriate if the said demarcation/boundary dispute is
decided and adjudicated in accordance with and under the provisions of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 as extended to Delhi. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach
the revenue officers under Section 36 of the said Act within a period of one month. If
any application is made within the aforesaid time, the same will not be dismissed on the
ground that the survey report dated 10th December, 2008 has not been challenged within
time. This order is being passed as the joint survey report was filed in this Court and the
petitioners have filed objections to the same, which have remained pending. Of course, it
will be open to the revenue authorities to go into the question whether there has been
delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in raising the boundary dispute or claim
and also examine the effect or consequence thereof. In case of an adverse order, it will
be open to the petitioners to challenge and question the order passed by the revenue
officers in accordance with law. The revenue officers will try and dispose of the
objections/application of the petitioners expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6
months from the date application is filed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 16, 2010
VKR/P
WPC No.10187-89/2006 Page 2
