High Court Of Delhi
BALBIR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
A.D.M.(REVENUE) - Respondent
Civil 3699 of 1991
Decided On : 01/01/1995
LAND REVENUE - DELHI LAND REVENUE ACT, 1954 - DELHI LAND REVENUE RULES, 1962 - AMENDMENTS - VALIDITY - RULE MAKING POWER - SCOPE - EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF LAND FROM THE OPERATION OF THE RULES - WHETHER VALID - HELD, AMENDMENTS ARE ULTRA VIRES AND BEYOND THE RULE MAKING POWER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules (1st Amendment) 1989, which amended Rules 49, 63, 65, and 67 and Form-P of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. Petitioners were in actual possession of the land in question as Bhumidars, but the relevant Revenue Records did not reflect the correct position. The impugned amendments were made by the rule-making authority under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Land Revenue Act). Petitioners contended that the amendments were ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and had the effect of nullifying most of its provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned amendments were ultra vires of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and beyond the rule-making power. The rule-making authority did not have the power to exclude any of the land from the operation of the Act. The amendments were made without there being power and were, therefore, bad in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned amendments to the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, were ultra vires of the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954? 2. Whether the rule-making authority had the power to exclude certain categories of land from the operation of the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rule-making power conferred under Section 84 of the Land Revenue Act is to prescribe the method and manner of maintenance of records for which purpose various forms may be prescribed. The power is to be exercised for the purpose of "carrying into effect the provisions of the Act", namely, to keep the record-of-rights or Annual Register up-to-date as per the factual position on the spot, since possession on the spot is of vital importance. 2. The impugned amendments excluded certain categories of land from the operation of the rules, including extended Abadi and land held and occupied for public purposes or a work of public utility. The Court held that this exclusion was beyond the rule-making power and was ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. The rule-making authority did not have the power to exempt any of the land defined under the Act from its operation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned amendments to Rules 49, 63, and Form P. 5 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. The Court directed the respondents to maintain the record of rights, including the Annual Register, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, without taking into consideration the impugned amendments.
( 1 ) SINCE common question of law is involved in these six petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of notification dated 30th November, 1989, known as the Delhi Land Revenue Rules (1st Amendment) 1989, hereinafter referred to as "the Amended Rules" by virtue of which amendments have been carried out to the existing Rules 49,63,65 and 67 as also in Form-P of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962.
( 3 ). The petitioners main grievance has been that throughout they are in actual possession of the land in question, in each case, as Bhumidars, yet in the relevant Revenue Records correct position as existing on the spot is not being reflected due to the impugned notification. The impugned amended Rules/purported to have been framed by the Rule making authority, by virtue of powers vested in him under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act No. 12 of 1954 ). Hereinafter referred to as "the Land Revenue Act", are ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. It has the effect of nullifying most of the provisions of the Act. Since the impugned notification has vitally affected their valuable rights in the property the same deserves to be quashed.
( 4 ) THE background in which the controversy has arisen may be noticed. On the enactment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Act No. 8 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as "the Land Reforms Act", on 20th July, 1954, concept of ownership in the land was done away in Delhi, since Section 4 thereof recognised only one class of tenure-holder, namely, BHUMIDAR and only one class of sub-tenure-holder, namely, ASAMI. Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act defines a Bhumidar to mean a person who holds land directly under and is liable to pay land revenue for that land to the State. The sub-tenure-holder has also been defined to mean a person holding land from a tenure-holder or Gaon Sabha and is liable to pay rent thereof to the tenure holder or to the Gaon Sabha. Persons falling in the two categories, as enumerated in Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 5, on the commencement of the Act and the one falling the third category, as enumerated in Clause (c) thereof, after the commencement of the Act are considered to be as Bhumidars, having all rights and be subject to all liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumidar by the Act. Land Reforms Act deals with numerous matters vis- a-vis the rights and liabilities of Bhumidars and Asamis. It is a complete Code in itself concerning their rights and liabilities. It also contains rules of succession of the rights of a Bhumidar or Asami. The Act also declares certain transactions made by or on behalf of a Bhumidar or an Asami to be void. Section 84 of the Act provides for ejectment of persons, occupying land without title. A person taking or retaining possession of land, otherwise in accordance with the provisions of law, where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami/ without consent of such Bhumidar or Asami or where land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidar or an Asami, without the consent of Gaon Sabha, is liable for ejectment on filing of a suit by a Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha. In the event of incurring liability for ejectment, such a person is also liable to pay damages. In case such a person re-enters, after being ejected, he is also liable for penal action. Section 85 of the Land Reforms Act has the effect of bestowing certain rights, automatically on such a person, who retains possession, without title, in case a suit is not brought within the prescribed period of limitation. Where land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar, the person automatically acquires rights as a Bhumidar, and where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami 6n behalf of Gaon Sabha, such a person acquires right of an Asami.
( 5 ) SECTION 67 of the Land Refor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.