2000 Supreme(SC) 990

2000(4) Supreme 615
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. etc. —Appellants
versus
Shri Siri Ram etc. etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6255 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 6820 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 6821 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 6822 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 6823 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal No. 6331 of 1995
Decided on 5-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.N. Ganpule, Ashok Panda, R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocates, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Rekha Pandey, S.N. Terdol, C.B. Verma, Mukesh K. Giri, C.S. Ashri, Pramit Sexena, S.V. Deshpande, B.K. Pra­sad, Sunil Gupta, Pramod Dayal, Praveen Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The amendments made to Rules 49, 63, 65 and 67 and also to Form P5 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules by the notifica­tion dated 8.11.1989 are ultra vires of the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954.

Headnote:Delhi Land Revenue Rules—Rules 49, 63, 65 and 67, Form P5—Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954—Sections 5, 16 and 65A — Amendments made in Rules 49, 63, and 67 and Form P5—Validity of—Effect of amendment would be name of a person other than one recorded in columns 4 and 5 will not be recorded in Form P.4 even if he is in possession of land —Rights of tenure holder or a sub-tenure holder occupying land in ­‘Extended Abadi’ or six categories of lands mentioned in new sub-rule (5) of Rule 63 would be adversely ­affected as their possession in land in those areas would not be reflected in records of rights and Annual Register—Amendments contrary to provisions of Act—Amended rules quashed.

       Old Rule 63 deals with instructions of filling up of columns 4 and 5 from Khatauni in Form P4 and against columns 4 and 5 names of tenure holder and sub-tenure holder as prescribed in the Khatauni are re­quired to be recorded. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 provides that if a person other than one recorded in columns 4 and 5 is found to be in actual occupation of the land, his name is to be recorded in remarks column. By inserting new sub-rule (5) to Rule 63 henceforth, Rule 63 shall not apply to the lands classified in classes (a) to (f) of the said sub-rule. The name of a person other than one recorded in columns 4 and 5 will not be recorded in Form P4 even if he is in possession of the land. The Land Revenue Act did not empower the rule making authority either to classify land or exclude any area from preparation of record of-rights and Annual Register and therefore if the amendments are upheld, the result would be that a person would be deprived of his valuable right of possession in the excluded area as his name would not be recorded in the record-of-rights. (Paras 6 &7)

       Under old Rule 49 the Patwari is required to make field to field inspection three times in a year, the object being to maintain the map and the field book properly. Rule 51 enjoins a duty upon the Patwari to compare the fields one by one with the map and in every inspection shall note any change which might have occurred on the boundaries etc. By amending this rule the rule making authority has excluded certain classes of land which is defined as ­“Extended Abadi” from the operation of preparation of map and the field book. The Act does not authorise the rule making authority to exclude any area from the purview of Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus the rule making authority acted beyond its power. (Para 9)

       Under Section 65A, a tenure holder or a sub-tenure holder may be evicted by the Deputy Commissioner if land is not used for two consecu­tive years for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture etc. Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act provides for ejectment of a Bhumi­dar or Asami for use of a land in contravention of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. ­According to Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, all entries in the record of rights prepared under the Act shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved. As a result of the amendments made in Rule 49 and Rule 63, the rights of the tenure holder or a sub-tenure holder occupying land in “Extended Abadi” or six categories of lands mentioned in the new sub-rule (5) of Rule 63 would be adversely affected as their possession of the land in these areas would not be reflected in the record-of-rights and Annual Regis­ter. This is contrary to the provisions of both the Acts. The other amendments made in Rules 65A, 67 and Form P-5 are liable to be quashed on the self same ground. It is well recognised principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule making power by an Act does not enable the rule making ­authority to make rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. From the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that by amending the Rules and Form P.5, the rule making authority have exceeded the power conferred on it by the Land Reforms Act. (Paras 12 to 14)