Delhi High Court
Brij Kishore Tyagi & Ors. vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 March, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 203 of 2011
Brij Kishore Tyagi & Ors. ....Appellants
Through Mr. K.K. Tyagi & Mr. Iftikhar, Advs.
VERSUS
NCT of Delhi & Ors. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Addl. Standing
Counsel for GNCT of Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 01.03.2011
LPA No. 203/2011 & CM No.4392/2011 (for directions)
Drawing our attention to the impugned order dated 20th
January, 2011 and observations of the Division Bench of this Court in
Balbir Singh vs. A.D.M.(Revenue) & Others., 57(1995) DLT 547(DB) and
the learned Single Judge in Shri Ram Phal & Another vs. B.S. Bhalla &
Ors., 112(2004) DLT 193. It is submitted that the whole issue including
the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 788/2010, Shri
Bhagmal & Ors. vs. Gaon Sabha Aya Nagar &Ors., requires
reconsideration.
2. We do not agree. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), the Division
Bench was examining the question whether by a notification six
categories of land could be excluded from the operation of the Delhi
Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 (the Act
and Rules, for short) by giving it a colour of an amendment to the Rules.
This Court did not agree and the writ was allowed. Accordingly,
amendment to Form P.5 was quashed and the respondent revenue
authority was directed to maintain record of rights, including the annual
register in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The
said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 452.
3. In the present case, the respondent Gaon Sabha has initiated
proceedings under Section 86A of the Act for ejectment. The appellant
has also initiated proceedings under Section 85 of the Act claiming
bhumidhari rights. Two proceedings are pending. Initiation of
ejectment proceedings under Section 86A of the Act by the Gaon
Sabha, implies that the respondents admit that the land is in possession
of a third party and the Gaon Sabha is not in occupation/possession.
Therefore, the petition for ejectment and possession. The right of the
parties shall considered and decided in the said proceedings. It is
keeping in view the aforesaid factors; that in LPA 788/2010, vide order
dated 9th November, 2010, in identical circumstances, it has been
observed/directed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded to
that till the matter is finally decided by the
competent authority under the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954, no steps shall be taken to
dispossess the appellants from the occupation in
question.
In our considered opinion, the matter has to be
adjudicated by the competent authority under the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 which shall also
determine the status of the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit
in the appeal and, accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. However, we may hasten to clarify
that the non-granting of relief by the learned
Single Judge and our non-interference would not
come in the way of adjudication proceeding which
has been initiated under Sections 85 and 86A of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. There shall be
no order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents - Gaon Sabha, has made a
similar statement and the respondents are bound by the said
statement. It will be also open to the appellants to file an application
before the revenue authorities stating that they continue to remain in
possession. In case any application is filed, the same will be entertained
by the revenue authorities and disposed of in accordance with law.
The respondent authority will not refuse to accept the applications.
5. The judgment in the case of Ram phal (supra) is distinguishable.
In the said case, the Court was dealing with contempt proceedings and
allegation was that there was willful disobedience of the judgment in
the case of Balbir Singh (supra). In the said case, it was noticed that the
proceedings under Section 86A of the Act were initiated in or around
August, 2000 much after the judgment. It is not very clear but probably
the revenue entries which were subject matter in Ramphal's case
(supra) related to the period prior to 2000. The said judgment
specifically records that ejectment of an unauthorized or illegal person
can only be effected by resort to these Sections and not by the device
of refusing to record the name of the person in actual possession. In
the present case ejectment proceedings under Section 86A of the Act
have been initiated.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
March 01, 2011
KKB
