Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1873
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
Harita Pandey
Versus
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
W.P.(C) 7009 of 2013
Decided on: 07-08-2014
For the Petitioners:L.M. Asthana, Siddhant Asthana, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R2 & R4, Sanjeev Goyal, Ms. Sneh Thakur, & R3, N.S. Dalal, Advocates.
The central legal point established is the enforcement of court orders for de-notification of forest land and the execution of mutation in favor of the petitioner.
Headnote:
Mutation - Property Dispute - W.P.(C) 7009/2013 - CWP No.2418/1997 - Forest Settlement Officer Order - Mutation Application - De-notification - Revenue Record - Mutation in Favour of Petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for quashing an order related to the transfer of a property, claiming to have purchased the property and applied for mutation. The Revenue Assistant allowed the mutation, but the Naib Tehsildar halted the process due to a complaint from a third party. The petitioner made representations to the Deputy Commissioner, citing court orders for de-notification of forest land and a Forest Settlement Officer's order recognizing the property as agricultural land.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to execute the mutation in favor of the petitioner, noting that the land had been de-notified, and disregarded allegations made against a third party.
Issues: Dispute over the mutation of a property, non-compliance with court orders for de-notification of forest land, and allegations made against a third party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Forest Settlement Officer's order recognizing the land as agricultural, the non-dispute of facts by the respondents, and the de-notification of the land in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directed the respondents to execute the mutation in favor of the petitioner, and disregarded allegations made against a third party.
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral):
CM.No.4653/2014
1. Vide the instant application, applicant is seeking the following prayers:
“1. That the petitioner be allowed to amend the petition in Paragraph no. 1, 2 and 3(a) to the effect that the property description therein be taken as 1 Bigha 17 Biswas bearing Mustatil No. 119 in Khasra No.8 min situated in revenue estate of village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.
2. That the description of the property in the order dated 21/11/2013 be read as 1 Bigha 17 Biswas bearing Mustatil No.119 in Khsra No.8 min situated in revenue estate of village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.”
2. Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the non-applicants submit that they have no objection if the instant application is allowed.
3. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant application and statement of ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents, instant application is allowed.
4. Consequently, amended petition is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 7009/2013
1. Pleadings in the Writ Petition were complete and with the consent of the parties same is considered as pleadings in the amended petition.
2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner/Collector (South), which is as under:
“Appellant present and heard. The land involved in this case is notified as ridge land in year 1996. Though Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition filed by party has directed to issue corrigendum for de-notification, no such de-notification has been issued so far. In the absence of the de-notification earlier notification of 1996 stands. And hence land cannot be transferred. Application is disposed of accordingly.”
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Petition.
4. Mr. L.M. Asthana, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner purchased the property ad-measuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswas bearing Mustatil No.119 in Khasra No. 8 min situated in revenue estate of village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi vide Registered Sale Deed dated 25.2.2011, registered vide no.3478 in Book No.1, Volume No. 10973 of pages 103 to 110 before Sub-Registrar, Delhi from Sh. R.P. Jindal and Sh. Kishore Kumar. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for mutation of the said property in her name before the Office of Revenue Assistant, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehrauli. The mutation order was passed by the Revenue Assistant/SDM on the basis of the direction of High Court passed in CWP No.2418/1997, directing for issuance of corrigendum for de-notification of the piece of agricultural land which was wrongly notified as forest land.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid order, the SDM/Revenue Assistant categorically observed the fact that since the predecessors in the interest of petitioner and certain other co-applicants with the petitioner have already been declared as Bhumidars, the petitioner therefore, cannot go ahead with the mutation. It was also observed that mutation is nothing but an updation of revenue record. Thereafter, SDM/Revenue Assistant allowed the mutation application of the petitioner and 8 other co-applicants.
6. The petitioner thereafter approached the Naib Tehsildar in the Office of SDM for completing the formalities of mutation of the property purchased by the petitioner in her name. The said Tehsildar thereafter instead of mutating the property in the name of the petitioner asked the petitioner to meet one Khushi Ram, respondent no.3, who had filed a complaint against the present property being mutated in the name of the petitioner.
7. Mr. Asthana, ld. Counsel submits that the said Khushi Ram, respondent no.3 had written a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the property of the petitioner cannot be mutated as same falls within the category of forest land. Thereafter, respondent no.2 passed an i
