Sarjo vs L.G. Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4347 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of Decision: 15th September, 2010

+        W.P.(C) 553/2007 & CM.No.1033/2007(u/s 151 CPC for stay)
%
         SARJO                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr. A.K. Sen with Ms. Minati Murari,
                                   Advocates.

                                         Versus

         L.G. OF DELHI & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Advocate.

                                            AND

+        W.P.(C) 13101/2009 & CM.No.14128/2009(for stay)

         RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ORS                    ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. A.K. Sen with Ms. Minati Murari,
                     Advocates.

                                   Versus
         L.G. OF DELHI AND ORS                   ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                          No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                   No

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioners by these two petitions seek inter alia relief of

correction of the Gazette Notification vesting certain lands purportedly of

the Gaon Sabha in the revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai, in the

forest/ridge department pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court in M.C.

Mehta's case. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands have been

wrongly included in the said Notification and seek exclusion of their land

from the said Notification.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners/their predecessors

were owners of the lands bearing khasra No. 179 in the said village; that the

said land was exchanged in pursuance to the Resolution dated 30 th

December, 1981 of the Gaon Sabha, for land in Khasra No. 451 and 452

now in occupation of the petitioners and which land was given to the

petitioners on freehold basis for constructing pucca houses and residences.

It is further the contention of the petitioners that the said exchange was also

approved by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The present petitions were

filed when the lands now in occupation of the petitioners and given to them

in exchange as aforesaid, have been vide Notification aforesaid transferred

to the forest department, treating the same to be the land of the Gaon Sabha.

3. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the matter in

controversy is squarely covered by the judgment dated 25 th August, 2004 of

this court in WP(C)1146/2003 titled as Amit G. Rohra Vs. Lt. Governor of

Delhi and the judgment dated 9th April, 2009 in WP(C) 1044-48/2004 titled

Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. UOI.

4. This court in Amit G. Rohra (supra) held that when admittedly the

land in khasra no. 179 belonged to the predecessor of the petitioners and the

Gaon Sabha took possession of the said land and in exchange thereof

allotted the land in khasra nos. 448, 449, 450, 451 and 452 of Village Neb

Sarai to the petitioners therein, the petitioners therein had a legal title and a

legal claim to the land in their possession now and would be entitled to the

relief. A mandamus was issued directing the respondent to issue a

corrigendum to the Notification vesting the land in forest department.

5. The respondents in the present case have filed a counter affidavit, the

only defence wherein is that the exchange aforesaid of the land was not

approved by the competent authority in the year 1986.

6. This aspect of the matter is covered by the judgment in Jasbir Singh

Malik (supra). This court in the said judgment held that the decision of

1986 produced for the first time in Jasbir SinghMalik's case, nowhere

reflects application of mind to the approval granted in 1983 by the

Lieutenant Governor. It was further held that the decision of 1986 in a letter

issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner (Panchayat) has not

even referred to the exchange and the proposal or the final approval thereto

granted by the Lieutenant Governor. In these circumstance, this Court held

that the decision of 1986 to be having no effect at all.

7. It has been enquired from the counsel for the respondents whether

there is any distinguishing feature in the present case which requires this

court not to follow the two judgments aforesaid. The counsel for the

respondents has been unable to show any such reason.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitions are allowed. A

mandamus is issued directing the respondents to issue a Corrigendum

excluding the land in Khasra No. 452 measuring 4 biswas (200 sq. yds)

subject matter of WP(C)553/2007 and land in Khasra No. 451 as shown in

the site plan in WP(C)13101/2009, both situated in the Revenue Estate of

Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Delhi from the Notification dated 2 nd

April, 1996. Consequently, the respondents are also directed to make

necessary entry in their records regarding exchange of land and the right of

the petitioners be recorded with respect to their lands aforesaid.

The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 M