V.K. Jain, J.

1. The facts, as noted in the order dated 20.02.2013 are as follows:

The appellant before us is in possession of agricultural land measuring two bighas comprised in khasra No. 103 in Revenue Estate of village Maidan Garhi, Delhi. An inspection was carried out by the Village Patwari on 4th February, 2000 and it was found that there existed house, plants of fruits and vegetables and tin shed for fodder cattle on the aforesaid land along with a tubewell. The proceedings under Sec. 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act having been initiated against the appellant, he appeared before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant and filed a reply. After going through the record and perusing the aforesaid report of the Village Patwari, the proceedings against the appellant were dropped. Another inspection was carried out by the Village Patwari on 23rd March, 2001, and a boundary wall with rooms was found constructed on the aforesaid land; it was reported by the Village Patwari that the agricultural land had been made non-cultivable on account of the aforesaid construction. On the aforesaid report, fresh proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were initiated against the appellant, which culminated in an additional order under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act being passed against the appellant. Appeal to the Collector (South) filed by the respondent was dismissed after noticing that in the khasra girdawari of the year 2000-2001, there was no construction on the aforesaid land on 5th October, 2000 and 24th February, 2001, whereas the report dated 23rd March, 2001 showed existence of rooms which proved that the construction had come up only after 24th February, 2001. He further noted that there was a subsequent report submitted to Tehsildar on 18.04.2002 stating therein that he had visited the land in question along with the Patwari and found that the land owner had made non-agricultural use of the agricultural land by constructing rooms and no crops/vegetables were being cultivated on the said land. It was held that the appellant had misused the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and had thereby contravened Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

The appellant filed a revision petition against the order passed by the Collector (South). The revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2nd December, 2004 holding that the construction shown in the report dated 23.03.2001 had come up after 24.02.2001. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who, while dismissing the writ petition was of the view that the earlier order passed by the Revenue Assistant was in blatant ignorance of the report of Patwari dated 04.02.2000.

2. Vide order dated 20.02.2013, the appeal was dismissed noticing that at the time of inspection carried out on 04.02.2000, construction was found having been raised only on the portion of the agricultural land since the plants of fruits and vegetables were found on the un-constructed portion of the land, whereas no plants of fruits or vegetables were found when the inspection was carried out on 23.03.2001, meaning thereby that further construction had been carried out after 04.02.2000, on that portion of the land where plants of fruits and vegetables were earlier found on 04.02.2000. Noticing that boundary wall also did not exist at the time inspection was carried out on 04.02.2000, the Court felt that the said boundary wall was constructed after that date. The concluding paragraph of the order dated 20.02.2013, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“7. Since the appellant carried out additional constructions after 4th February, 2000 by raising boundary wall and also making construction on that portion of the land where plants of fruits and vegetables were found on 4th February, 2000, Gaon Sabha had a fresh cause of action to file a suit for ejectment of the appellant on