IMPORTANT POINT
Urbanisation of rural area – Once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 cease to apply.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi holding that once the rural area is urbanized by issuance of a notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1957”), it ceases to be governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1954”) in sequel thereto and held that the proceedings under Act, 1954 were non est leaving the parties to agitate their claims/disputes before appropriate fora clarifying that all pleas in law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriate forum.

2. The facts in seriatim as manifest from the record are that one Maman Singh who was a recorded Bhumidhar of the land admeasuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 M in village Samepur, Delhi as alleged, sold the land to one Bhai Ram vide registered sale deed dated 9th March, 1970. The respondents Narain Singh and Som Dutt have purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from Shri Maman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1989. Later, they applied for mutation under Act, 1954 and their names were mutated on 31st May, 1989.

3. It has been pleaded by the appellants that before the registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1989 came to be executed by Maman Singh in favour of the respondents herein and their names were mutated on 31st May, 1989, the appellants had come into possession over the subject land. The appellants later challenged the mutation order dated 31st May, 1989 opened in favour of the respondents claiming adverse possession by filing appeal under Section 64 of the Act 1954. After certain rounds of litigation, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of the respondents by Order dated 10th February, 1995 holding that the transfer was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, 1954 and further ordered the land in dispute to be vested in Gaon Sabha.

4. It is relevant to mention that the Order of the Financial Commissioner dated 10th February, 1995 wherein it was observed “land in dispute ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha” was never challenged by the appellants whereas the respondents challenged the Order dated 10th February, 1995 by filing Writ Petition(civil) No. 670 of 1995 before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 14th July, 2008 and that became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the respondents assailing in LPA No. 591 of 2008.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court returned a finding that once the notification dated 23rd April, 1982 has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 which expressly urbanizes the subject land in question and brings within the scope and ambit of Act, 1957, it no more remains rural area thus, all proceedings under the Act, 1954 stand non est leaving the parties to agitate their claims/disputes before appropriate fora with a clarification that all the pleas in law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriate fora which may be adopted for redressal of grievance under judgment impugned dated 22nd November, 2012 which is a subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.

6. In this context, it may be noticed that respondents Narain Singh and Som Dutt had filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction. The matter at the stage of temporary jurisdiction travelled to this Court in a special leave petition filed at the instance of respondents which was dismissed by Order dated 23rd January, 1992 with a direction to the revenue authorities to decide the matter in four months. Subsequently, by order dated 2nd September, 1992, this Court directed the concerned SHO to hand over po