Randhir Singh vs Gaon Sabha Maidangarhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 854 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment reserved on   : 18.02.2013
                               Judgment pronounced on : 20.02.2013

+      LPA 646/2012

       RANDHIR SINGH                                   ..... Appellant
                    Through          Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. D.P. Singh,
                                     Advocates

                         Versus


       GAON SABHA MAIDANGARHI                ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. The appellant before us is in possession of agricultural land

measuring two bighas comprised in khasra No. 103 in Revenue Estate of

village Maidan Garhi, Delhi. An inspection was carried out by the Village

Patwari on 4th February, 2000 and it was found that there existed house,

plants of fruits and vegetables and tin shed for fodder cattle on the

aforesaid land along with a tubewell. The proceedings under Sec. 81 of

the Delhi Land Reforms Act having been initiated against the appellant,

he appeared before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue

Assistant and filed a reply. After going through the record and perusing

the aforesaid report of the Village Patwari, the proceedings against the

appellant were dropped. Another inspection was carried out by the

Village Patwari on 23rd March, 2001, and a boundary wall with rooms

was found constructed on the aforesaid land; it was reported by the

Village Patwari that the agricultural land had been made non-cultivable

on account of the aforesaid construction. On the aforesaid report, fresh

proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were

initiated against the appellant, which culminated in an additional order

under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act being passed against the

appellant. Appeal to the Collector (South) filed by the respondent was

dismissed after noticing that in the khasra girdawari of the year 2000-

2001, there was no construction on the aforesaid land on 5 th October,

2000 and 24th February, 2001, whereas the report dated 23rd March, 2001

showed existence of rooms which proved that the construction had come

up only after 24th February, 2001. He further noted that there was a

subsequent report submitted to Tehsildar on 18.04.2002 stating therein

that he had visited the land in question along with the Patwari and found

that the land owner had made non-agricultural use of the agricultural land

by constructing rooms and no crops/vegetables were being cultivated on

the said land. It was held that the appellant had misused the agricultural

land for non-agricultural purposes and had thereby contravened Section

81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

2. The appellant filed a revision petition against the order passed by

the Collector (South). The revision peititon was dismissed by the

Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2nd December, 2004 holding

that the construction shown in the report dated 23.03.2001 had come up

after 24.02.2001. The writ petition filed by the appellant having been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge, he is before us by way of this

appeal. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition was

of the view that the earlier order passed by the Revenue Assistant was in

blatant ignorance of the report of Patwari dated 04.02.2000.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that since

the Patwari vide his report dated 4th February, 2000 had reported the

construction of house and tin shed and despite such a report the

proceedings were dropped by the Revenue Assistant vide order dated 4 th

May, 2000, it was not open to the respondent to initiate another

proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and

therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Assistant as well as the

orders passed by the Collector (South), Financial Commissioner and the

learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.

4. Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, to the extent it is

relevant for our purpose, provides that a Bhumidar or an Asami shall be

liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder, as the

case may be, for using land for any purpose other than a purpose

connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which

includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and also pay damages

equivalent to the cost of works which may be required to render the land

capable of use for the said purposes.

5. It would, thus, be seen that if an agriculture land is used either

wholly or partly for any purpose which is not connected with agriculture,

horticulture or animal husbandry, the Bhumidar or Asami as the case may

be, is liable to be ejected from such land, on the suit of the Gaon Sabha

and he is also liable to pay damages equivalent to the cost of the work

which would be necessary in order to restore the land so as to make it

suitable for agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary purposes.

6. A comparison of the report dated 4th February, 2000 with the

subsequent report dated 23.03.2001 would show that at the time of

inspection on 4th February, 2000, construction had been raised only on the

part of the agriculture land occupied by the appellant since the plants of

fruits and vegetables were found on the unconstructed portion of the land.

On the other hand, no plants of fruits or vegetables were found on any

portion of the land in question when inspection was carried out on 23 rd

March, 2001. It would, thus, be seen that after 4 th February, 2000, the

appellant had carried out further construction on the land in question by

raising construction even on that portion of the land where plants of fruits

and vegetables were found on 4th February, 2000. No boundary wall was

found at the time of inspection on the land in question on 4 th February,

2000 whereas boundary was found existing at the time of inspection on

23.03.2001. This shows that the boundary wall also was constructed after

inspection was carried out on 4th February, 2000.

7. Since the appellant carried out additional constructions after 4 th

February, 2000 by raising boundary wall and also making construction on

that portion of the land where plants of fruits and vegetables were found

on 4th February, 2000, Gaon Sabha had a fresh cause of action to file a

suit for ejectment of the appellant on account of such additional

construction. Since the use of an agriculture land for residential purposes

by constructing a house and a boundary wall cannot be said to be a

purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, we

find no fault with the order passed by the Revenue Assistant and the

orders whereby the revision petition and the writ petition filed by the

appellant were dismissed. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same

is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 20, 2013 'raj'