Delhi High Court
Sh. Mahinder Singh vs Collector (North-West), Delhi & ... on 9 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th July, 2012
+ LPA No.489/2012
% SMT. KESARWATI & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav & Ms. Anita
Tomar, Advs.
Versus
COLLECTOR (NORTH-WEST), DELHI & ORS.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nazmi Waziri with Ms. Neha
Kapoor, Advs.
AND
+ LPA No.490/2012
% SH. MAHINDER SINGH ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav & Ms. Anita
Tomar, Advs.
Versus
COLLECTOR (NORTH-WEST), DELHI & ORS.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nazmi Waziri with Ms. Neha
Kapoor, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Both these intra-court appeals impugn the common order dated
07.05.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.11797-
99/2006 and W.P.(C) No.11807/2006 filed by the appellants respectively.
The said writ petitions were filed impugning the order dated 08.06.2006 of
the Financial Commissioner dismissing the Second Appeal under Sections
64 and 65 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 preferred by the appellants
in LPA No.489/2012 against the order dated 20.03.2006 of the Collector
(North-West). The order dated 20.03.2006 of the Collector (North-West) in
turn was of allowing the First Appeal preferred by the Gaon Sabha, village
Sultanpur Dabas against the order dated 17.12.1998 of mutation of land ad-
measuring 7 Bighas and 3 Biswas in village Sultanpur Dabas in favour of
the appellants in LPA No.489/2012.
2. The Collector (North-West), the Financial Commissioner as well as
the learned Single Judge in their concurrent orders have held the mutation of
the said land in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 to be bad for
the reason:
(a) that the said land was kept reserved for the 'Kumhar'
community of the village, to enable them to take out earth
therefrom and earn their livelihood;
(b) that however the appellant in LPA No.490/2012 claiming to be
one of the only five members of the Kumhar community in the
village and as the attorney of the other four, had executed a
Sale Deed of the said land in favour of the appellants in LPA
No.489/2012 and on the basis of which Sale Deed, the mutation
had been effected;
(c) that neither the appellant in LPA No.490/2012 nor any of the
other members of the Kumhar community had any title to the
said land or authorized to transfer the same and thus the said
Sale Deed did not vest any right in the said land in favour of
the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 and the mutation in their
favour was thus bad;
(d) that the Gaon Sabha had filed the First Appeal to the Collector
(North-West), though after seven years of mutation but
immediately upon the same coming to its notice and hence the
delay in filing the First Appeal was correctly condoned;
(e) that the mutation even otherwise was without issuance of
notice to the Gaon Sabha to whom and in whom the land
belonged / vested.
3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants before us is that the
Kumhar community of the village was the Bhumidhar of the said land and
all the members of the said community were thus, as Bhumidhar, entitled to
sell the said land and the sale was valid and the land had been correctly
mutated in favour of the appellants in LPA No.489/2012. It is further
argued that there is no provision for issuing notice of the mutation
application to the Gaon Sabha and there was thus no error in the mutation
which has been set aside.
4. At this stage, it may also be stated that the Gaon Sabha had also
instituted proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954 for recovering possession of the said land from the appellants in LPA
No.489/2012 and which proceedings though have been dropped by the
Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the appeal of the Gaon Sabha
thereagainst is pending consideration. The learned Single Judge for the said
reason, though has upheld the order aforesaid of the Collector (North-West)
and the Financial Commissioner of setting aside the mutation in favour of
the appellants in LPA No.489/2012 of the said land but has struck down the
order of the Collector (North-West) insofar as also directing the land to be
reverted in the records of the Revenue Authorities in the name of the Gaon
Sabha.
5. We have enquired from the counsel for the appellants as to how the
Kumhar community could be the Bhumidhar and / or as to how the
members for the time being thereof could transfer the said land inasmuch as
the land appears to be for the benefit of the community from time to time.
Though the counsel for the appellants has attempted to reply to our said
query but we are of the opinion that it will not be proper to deal with the
said aspect since the aspect of possession / ejectment of the appellants in
LPA No.489/2012 from the said land at the instance of the Gaon Sabha is
pending consideration and the said aspects may be arising therein also and
any decision / observation by us on this aspect, at this stage may prejudice
the parties in those proceedings.
6. Suffice it is to observe that in an appeal against proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. equitable jurisdiction, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge which
is equitable and sufficiently protects the interest of the appellants.
7. There is no merit in these appeals. The same are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 09, 2012/'gsr'
