Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 15 May, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.05.2013
+ W.P.(C) 2032/2013
KRISHAN KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The case of the petitioner is that land measuring 4 bighas and 12 biswas
comprised in Khasra no.20/8, Sub Division-Najafgarh, Delhi was allotted to his
father in the year 1976 under the Scheme of 20 Point Programme as Asamis,
initially for a period of five years and since then his father and thereafter the
petitioner has been in continuous possession of the aforesaid land. According to the
petitioner, vide application dated 10.6.2011, he applied to Tehsildar, Palam for
entering his name in the revenue record in respect of the aforesaid land, but his
name has not been entered in the revenue record.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the
petitioner is entitled to recording of his name in the Revenue record has relied upon
the decision of this Court in C.W.P No.639/1999 rendered on 1.8.2001. In the
above referred case, the petitioners before this Court claimed that they or their
predecessors in interest being landless labourers and persons belonging to weaker
sections of the society were allotted diverse parcels of land in the Revenue Estate
of Chhawla, Delhi as Asamis for an initial period of five years. This was also their
submission that the allotment made to them culminated in bhumidari rights in
terms of Section 74(4) of Delhi Land Reforms Act and they were in possession of
the said land. This Court, noticing that the amendments made in Rule 49, 63 and
Form P-5 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules had been held to be bad law by a Division
Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh vs. ADM (Revenue) [57(1995) DLT 547] and
the appeal challenging the aforesaid order had been dismissed by the Supreme
Court vide its judgment reported as ADM (Revenue) vs. Shri Ram [IV (2000)
Supreme Laws Today 592], disposed of the petition with the following order:
"From the aforesaid two judgments, it is clear that in case the
petitioner is in possession of the land at the spot, his possession
has to be recorded in terms of the rules framed under the Delhi
Land Revenue Act. The possession of the petitioner is, however,
disputed by the respondents. This Court in this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India will, therefore, not
decide the disputed questions of fact as to whether or not the
petitioner is in actual physical possession of the land in
question. In case the petitioners are in actual physical
possession of the land in question, they are at liberty to file
appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law to get
their possession recorded in the revenue records and the
authorities after investigating the matter in accordance with law
will make necessary entries in accordance with the provisions of
the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules
without, in any manner, taking into consideration the
amendments carried out in Rules 49, 63 and Form P-5 b virtue
of the Delhi Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1989 as
notified 30.11.1989. With these observations, the petition stands
disposed of.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states, on instructions, that
no application was received by them from the petitioner either on 10.6.2001 or on
any other date for entering his name in the revenue record. I have perused the copy
of the application filed by the petitioner. It does not bear any stamp though it is
addressed to Tehsildar, Palam. The acknowledgment on the application does not
indicate the name or designation of the person who purports to have received the
said application. It is not possible for this Court to undertake an inquiry in these
proceedings to verify whether the application in question was actually received by
the respondent or not. In my view, once the respondents have taken the stand that
no such application was actually received by them, and it is also found that the
acknowledgment relied upon by the petitioner does not indicate the name or
designation of the person who is alleged to have received the application, the
appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to apply afresh for entering his
name in the revenue record if he is otherwise entitled to such an entry on the
strength of the projections claimed by him. The other possible remedy can be to
file a civil suit for mandatory injunction, seeking the same relief, which has been
claimed in this petition and in such a suit the civil court can go into this question, to
record a finding as to whether the said application was actually submitted to the
respondents or not.
4. In view of the above, the petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall be
at liberty either file a civil suit or to apply afresh to the respondent, for entering his
possession in the revenue record. In case a fresh application is made, the
respondent shall make an inquiry in this regard and if it is found that the petitioner
has been in possession, in the manner stated in the writ petition, his possession
shall be recorded in terms of the provisions contained in Delhi Land Revenue Act
and Delhi Land Revenue Rules, without taking into consideration the amendments
made in Rule 49, 63 and Form-P by virtue of Delhi Land (Revenue) Rules, 1989 as
notified on 30.11.1989.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 15, 2013/rd
