VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition it has been alleged that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the Judgment dated 17. 1. 1995 passed by the Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon ble Mr. Justice D. P. Wadhwa and Hon ble Mr. Justice Devinder Gupta which held, inter alia, as follows-

" Extended abadi is covered by the definition of the land. This definition of land does not exempt the classes of the land now incorporated in sub rule (5) of the Amended Rule 63 by virtue of the impugned amendments. In case there is no provision in the Act excluding the six categories of land from the operation of the Act, by merely issuing a notification giving is to be a colour of amendments in the rules under the rule making power of Section 85, which nowhere authorises the rule making authority to exempt any of the land from the operation of the Act, the amendments aforementioned deserves to be held to be bad in law and beyond the authority of the rule making power. For the self same reason, the amendment of form P. 5 also cannot be sustained and has to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do by allowing these petitions. We direct the respondents to maintain the record of rights, including the Annual Register, in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, without taking into consideration the amendments carried out to Rules 49, 63 and form P. 5 by virtue of the Delhi Land Revenue (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 1989, as notified on 30th November, 1989.

THE writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. "for a perusal of the complete Judgment reference is directed to Balbir Singh vs. ADM (Revenue) and Others, 57 (1995) DLT 547db.

( 2 ) THE Respondents had filed an Appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court which was disposed of by Judgment dated May 5, 2000 in which the aforementioned Judgment of the Division Bench was upheld and it was observed, inter alia, as follows:

"according to Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, there is one class of tenure holder, that is to say, BHUMIDAR, and one class of sub-tenure holder, that is to say, ASAMI, and their rights and liabilities are mentioned in Section 5 of the said Act. 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 those areas would not be reflected in the record-of-right; and Annual Register. This is contrary to the provisions of both the Act. 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. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has rightly quashed and set aside the impugned rules and therefore, the appeals have no merit. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. "

( 3 ) IT would be advantageous to reproduce verbatim the Ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document