Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Jai Singh and Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
Secretary Law and Judicial and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 56/1978
Decided On: 22.05.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Sunil Dabol, B.P. Gupta and Sanjeev Narula, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant:Vijay Choudhary, Adv. for LR of respondent No. 3
Section 18(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 applies to all evictions, including those carried out illegally or through trespass.
Headnote:
DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 - SECTION 18(2) - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - EVICTION - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - APPLICATION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - MUTUAL AGREEMENT - SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS - ABANDONMENT - DISTINCTION - CIVIL SUIT - DECREE - COMPROMISE - MERGER - ESTOPPEL - EXECUTION - OUSTER - TRESPASS - DISPOSSESSION - DISCONTINUANCE - INTENTION - ONUS OF PROOF - MESNE PROFITS - CALCULATION - PAYMENT - STAY OF OPERATION - RESTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
In 1955, Mr. Govardhan Singh filed an application for restoration of possession of agricultural land under Section 18(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, alleging eviction by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh. The Assistant Collector allowed the application in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids of land, but rejected it for the remaining land. Both parties filed cross-appeals, which were disposed of by the Additional Collector, who allowed Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh's appeal and dismissed Mr. Govardhan Singh's appeal. Mr. Govardhan Singh then filed a second appeal before the Chief Commissioner, who restored the order passed by the Assistant Collector in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids of land. Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court, which remanded the matter back to the second Appellate authority for reconsideration. The Law Secretary, acting as the second Appellate authority, allowed Mr. Govardhan Singh's application in entirety. Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh filed the present writ petition challenging the Law Secretary's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Law Secretary's order was partly correct and partly incorrect. The court held that Mr. Govardhan Singh was entitled to possession of the 11 bighas and 12 bids of land in Khasra Nos. 604, 605, 556, and 1493, but not to the remaining land. The court found that Mr. Govardhan Singh had surrendered his tenancy rights in the remaining land pursuant to a mutual exchange agreement with Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh. The court also held that the Law Secretary erred in interpreting Section 18(2) of the Act as being applicable only to evictions by court process. The court held that Section 18(2) applies to all evictions, including those carried out illegally or through trespass.
Issues: 1. Whether the Law Secretary's order was correct in allowing Mr. Govardhan Singh's application in entirety? 2. Whether Mr. Govardhan Singh was entitled to possession of the 11 bighas and 12 bids of land in Khasra Nos. 604, 605, 556, and 1493? 3. Whether Mr. Govardhan Singh was entitled to possession of the remaining land? 4. Whether the Law Secretary erred in interpreting Section 18(2) of the Act as being applicable only to evictions by court process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Law Secretary's order was partly correct and partly incorrect. The court held that Mr. Govardhan Singh was entitled to possession of the 11 bighas and 12 bids of land in Khasra Nos. 604, 605, 556, and 1493, but not to the remaining land. The court found that Mr. Govardhan Singh had surrendered his tenancy rights in the remaining land pursuant to a mutual exchange agreement with Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh. 2. The court held that Mr. Govardhan Singh was entitled to possession of the 11 bighas and 12 bids of land in Khasra Nos. 604, 605, 556, and 1493 because he had been evicted from that land by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh after 1st July, 1950. The court found that Mr. Govardhan Singh had been in possession of the land, that he had been evicted by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh, and that the eviction was not justified. 3. The court held that Mr. Govardhan Singh was not entitled to possession of the remaining land because he had surrendered his tenancy rights in that land pursuant to a mutual exchange agreement with Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh. The court found that the agreement was valid and that Mr. Govardhan Singh had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights. 4. The court held that the Law Secretary erred in interpreting Section 18(2) of the Act as being applicable only to evictions by court process. The court held that Section 18(2) applies to all evictions, including those carried out illegally or through trespass.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition. The court set aside the Law Secretary's order to the extent of the land that formed part of khasra Nos. 539, 543, 2124/518, 2127/518, 544, 2130/523, 524, 608, 285, and 1490. The court upheld the Law Secretary's order in respect of the 11 bighas and 12 bids of land in Khasra Nos. 604, 605, 556, and 1493. The court directed the Revenue Authorities to give possession of land of equal value in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Consolidation Act to the legal representatives of Mr. Govardhan Singh. The court also directed the Revenue Authorities to pay the legal representatives of Mr. Govardhan Singh an amount equal to Rs. 2500/- per year with effect from 1st March, 1978, as mesne profits.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. The present writ petition was filed in 1978 but the litigation between the parties was initiated in the year 1955, when predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, one Mr. Govardhan Singh had filed an application for restoration of possession of agricultural land under Section 18(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The application was directed against Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh, the petitioners, who are now represented by their legal representatives.
2. By the said application Mr. Govardhan Singh had asked for restoration of possession of agricultural land admeasuring 66 bighas and 6 bids was in khasra Nos. 2124/518, 2127/519, 2130/523, 524, 544, 608, 285 min., 1491 min., 539, 543 & 605, 604, 556 & 1493 situated in village Sultanpur, Debas, Delhi.
3. The aforesaid application was partly allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 2.6.1958 in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids was of land situated in khasra No. 604, 605, 556 and 1493. The reason given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the claim of Mr. Govardhan Singh in respect of other khasras was that the applicant Mr. Govardhan Singh was not able to establish that he had been evicted from the said khasra numbers. With regard to 11 bighas and 12 bids was of land, the Assistant Collector agreed with Mr. Govardhan Singh that he had been evicted by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh after 1st July, 1950.
4. Both parties filed cross-appeals which were disposed of on 17.6.1959. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal filed by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh and dismissed the appeal of Mr. Govardhan Singh. The result thereof was that the application under Section 18(2) of the Act filed by Mr. Govardhan Singh was dismissed. The first Appellate Authority held that Mr. Govardhan Singh had not been able to establish that he was evicted by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh.
.5. Mr. Govardhan Singh thereupon filed a second appeal before the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. The second appeal was disposed of on 19.4.1963 by restoring the order passed by the Assistant Collector and setting aside the order passed by the first Appellate Authority in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids was of land. The effect thereof was that Mr. Govardhan Singh was given possession under Section 18(2) of the Act in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids was of land situated in khasra No. 604, 605, 556 and 1493. The Appeal of Mr. Govardhan Singh in respect of other land measuring approximately 54 bighas and 14 bids was out of the total land of 66 bighas and 6 bids was was dismissed.
.6. Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh thereupon filed Civil Writ No. 641-D/1963 before the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi. The file of the said case was called for and has been examined by me. The relief prayed for in the said petition by Mr. Jai Singh and Mr. Rattan Singh is as under:
.It is, thereforee, prayed that an Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order quashing the order of the learned Chief Commissioner, Delhi, dated 19.4.1963, be passed, and the petitioners be not disturbed in their peaceful enjoyment of the land in respect of khasra Nos. 556, 604, 605 and 1493 in village Sultanpur Dabas (Delhi State). The petitioners should also be awarded costs of the petition along with any other relief which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
.7. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment dated 30th March, 1973 holding that the Chief Commissioner had failed to examine the matter in depth and with specific reference to the statements of Late Sub. Govardhan Singh, as well as Mr. Jai Singh. Reference was made to a document marked Ex.D/1, an agreement between Mr. Govardhan Singh and Mr. Jai Singh and Rattan Singh, in respect of 11 bighas and 12 bids was of land. The matter was remanded back to the second Appellate authority and it was directed as under:
.The controversy between the parties deserve
