The main legal point established in the judgment is that violations of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, cannot be used to argue for a limitation on initiating proceedings under the Act.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. A conditional order of ejectment (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner from two bighas of land in Khasra No.103, situated in the revenue estate of Village Madangarhi, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as subject land) passed on 3rd September, 2002, in proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal, which stood dismissedvide order of 4th March, 2004, (Annexure P-7) and the revision against the aforesaid order also stands dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi,vide impugned order of 2nd December, 2004 (Annexure P-8).

2. The challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-8) is on the ground that the earlier proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, initiated against the petitioner were droppedvide order of 4th May, 2000 (Annexure P-2) and in view of the bar of (Unsigned signature field (Click to sign)) Signature field is unsigned limitation of three years as contained in schedule-I to Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, initiation of fresh proceedings is unwarranted and the fresh proceedings initiated under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is bad in law and the orders passed in pursuance thereto are unsustainable in law and thus, deserves to be set aside.

3. Respondent’s Counsel while supporting the impugned order had pointed out that the revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari of the year 2000-01, pertaining to the subject land reveals that there was no construction and so in view of the report of 23rd March, 2001 of the concerned Patwari showing the construction upon the subject land warranted initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, against the petitioner and so the bar of limitation would not arise and since the factum of petitioner putting the subject land to non-agricultural use remains undisputed, therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order, requiring intervention of this Court in the writ proceedings.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find no hesitation in sustaining the impugned order, as there is no impediment to ignore the patently erroneous order (Annexure P-2) dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to the Patwari’s report of 4th February, 2000 (Annexure P-1), as the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2) has been passed while blatantly ignoring patwari’s report (Annexure P-1), wherein there is mention of existence of houses, tin sheds, etc. It is nobody’s case that construction of any kind of house upon agricultural land is permissible. The only difference between the patwari’s report (Annexure P-1) relied upon by petitioner’s Counsel and the subsequent report (Annexure P-3) is that the report (Annexure P-1), which was subject matter of the earlier proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, indicated limited violation as upon one Bigha of the subject land there was plantation of vegetable and trees of fruits, whereas the subsequent report (Annexure P-3) discloses utter violation of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, as there was no cultivation at all in the subject land.

5. Upon consideration of this matter in its correct perspective, I am unable to accept the contention of petitioner’s Counsel of the subsequent proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, culminating into passing of the impugned order being time barred, as non est and void orders like (Annexure P-2), can neither operate as res judicata nor can render the subsequent proceedings barred by time.

6. Such a view is being taken in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 125 (2005) DLT 259 (DB), which is as under:

“It is, therefore, evident that expressions “void” and “voidable” have more than one facet. Transactions and decre