Back
High Court Of Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog
RAJ ROOP - Appellant
Versus
RAJENDER SINGH - Respondents
C. R. P. 394 Of 2004
Decided On : 07/16/2007
Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 185, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - [AGRICULTURAL LAND, JURISDICTION, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to agricultural land governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, the applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court highlighted the legal provisions under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and their interpretations, emphasizing the bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts and the hierarchy of appellate or revisional authorities under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved disputes over agricultural land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, including claims of bhumidari rights and subsequent civil suits filed by the parties. The court considered interlocutory orders and applications related to impleadment and abatement of suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, and emphasized the importance of timely impleadment and the hierarchy of appellate or revisional authorities under the Act. The court also clarified the considerations for impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of civil courts in agricultural land disputes, the validity of interlocutory orders, the timeliness of impleadment, and the applicability of specific provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, and emphasized the importance of timely impleadment and the hierarchy of appellate or revisional authorities under the Act. The court also clarified the considerations for impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, with clarificatory observations and findings as recorded.
( 1 ) THOUGH different issues arise for consideration in CRP No. 168- 70/2006 and C. R. P. No. 394/2004, both petitions are being disposed of together as they arise out of 2 interlocutory orders passed in the same suit.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS of both set of revision petitions are the plaintiffs of the said suit. Petitioners of CRP No. 394/2004 are the legal heirs of late shri Surat Singh (alias Surte) impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit and the principal contestant.
( 3 ) PETITIONERS of CRP No. 168-70/2006 are third parties, subsequently impleaded as defendants in the suit.
( 4 ) WHEREAS petitioners of CRP No. 168-70/2006 are aggrieved by the order dated 20. 9. 2005 allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiffs to the suit and as a consequence impleading petitioners as defendants in the suit.
( 5 ) THE legal heirs of defendant No. 1. e. petitioners to CRP no. 394/2004 challenge the order dated 7. 7. 2004 allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs setting aside abatement of the suit and on account of death of surat Singh @ Surte impleading his legal heirs. e. petitioners of CRP no. 394/2004 as defendants.
( 6 ) TO appreciate the issues raised in the 2 petitions history of the dispute between the parties needs to be traced out and this takes me back to the year 1986.
( 7 ) SURAT Singh @ Surte invoked the jurisdiction of the revenue assistant under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 stating that he was entitled to a declaration that he was a bhumidar of land comprised in khasra no. 608 and 613 in the revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New delh. Basis of his claim was that one Smt. Rampyari who was the recorded bhumidar of the said land, being a widow, was incapable of cultivating the same as she was issue-less and had leased out the land to Surat Singh on batai (share cropping) basis in the year 1961. He further stated that Rampyari died in the year 1978. That there being no successor-in-interest, he. e. Surat Singh, continued to be in cultivatory possession of the land and thus should be declared a bhumidar thereof. He impleaded Risal Singh, Hukam Chand, Hoshiar singh, Samay Singh, Pratap Singh and Chand Singh, apart from the Gaon Sabha of the village as respondents. The 6 private persons appeared and filed a written statement inter alia stating that they were the successor-in-interest of smt. Rampyar. That Rampyari was in self cultivation of the land and claim of surat Singh was contrary to law.
( 8 ) RISAL Singh initiated proceedings under Section 84 of the Delhi land Reforms Act for ejectment of Surat Singh which were dismissed on 6. 7. 1988.
( 9 ) THE 6 private parties impleaded in the proceedings under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 stopped appearing and hence were proceeded against ex-parte. Surat Singh led ex-parte evidence. Vide order dated 8. 5. 1992, revenue assistant declared that Surat Singh was entitled to a declaration that he was the bhumidar of the land comprised in the 2 khasra numbers. He directed that in the revenue records, Surat Singh be recorded as the bhumidar of the 2 lands.
( 10 ) NONE challenged the order dated 8. 5. 1992 before the revenue authority constituted under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954.
( 11 ) ON 7. 5. 1996, the sons of Risal Singh, impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the petition filed by Surat Singh under Section 85 of the Delhi Land reforms Act 1954 before the revenue assistant filed a civil suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs against Surat Singh and a few other persons to whom Surat Singh was stated to have transferred part of the land comprised in khasra No. 608 613. Declaration sought was that the order dated 8. 5. 1992 passed by Shri B. K. Sehgal, Revenue Assistant was null and void on the ground that a fraud was played upon the Court, in that, service upon risal Singh was procured with the connivance of the process server and thus the order dat
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
