The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Court of Revenue Assistant, as the exclusive jurisdiction regarding partition of agricultural property lies with the Revenue Court as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. By this common order, the aforementioned Regular First Appeal (RFA), three Executive First Appeals (EFAs) and nine Civil Miscellaneous (Mains) [CM (M)] are being disposed off.

2. These petitions arise out of an order dated 02.02.2011, passed in Civil Suit No. 01/2010 (old suit number 2324/1989, hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) which declared the partition order dated 09.03.1983 passed by the Court of Revenue Assistant apropos the suit lands as null and void; it also declared illegal and set aside the subsequent sale deeds of the suit lands executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of defendants 7 to 82. All the nine CM(M) petitions and the three of the EFA petitions challenge a subsequent order dated 07.06.2013 passed in Execution Case No. 108/2011 whereby the Learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the objections filed by the petitioners herein against the execution of the impugned order. The RFA directly challenges the impugned order.

3. In the suit, the plaintiffs had claimed that they had purchased the suit lands, essentially agricultural, comprising various khasras situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kadipur, Delhi from the original owners/bhumidars (defendant No. 1 to 4) who had represented to the plaintiffs that the lands can be developed into a colony known as Radha Park, Delhi replete with facilities of roads, parks, schools, hospitals, shops etc. The plaintiffs, through their respective registered sale deeds, purchased the suit land comprising of Khasra No. 643(2-08), 644(2-16), 645(4-16), 646(4-16), 647 min.(East)(3-03), 667(4-16), 666(4-16), 668(4-16), 665(2-08), 664(4-16), 710(4-16), 711(4-16), 712(4-16), 713 min(West)(2-08), 715(4-16), 718 min(South) (4-12), 695(4-16), 694(4-16), 698(4-16), 713(2-10), 714(4-16), 660(4-16), 659(4-16), 655(2-08), 654(4-09), 652 min(0-12), 653(4-07), 651(4-16), 648 min(4-09), 647 min(1-17), 649 min (4-05), 650 min(4-17), 656min(4-09), 657(2014), 658 min(5-19), 716 min(6-07), 717(6-18) and 718 min(0-04); the lands were demarcated into plots by fixing bricks on the corners of the plots and by putting plot numbers as well as sign boards. The plaintiffs claimed ownership through respective registered sale deeds pertaining to the suit lands and claimed to have been in exclusive and peaceful possession of the said lands. It was claimed that some plaintiffs had even raised boundary walls and had also started construction thereon but most of them, owing to distance from their place of residence, did not carry out any construction.

4. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 allegedly concealed the earlier sale transaction with the plaintiffs and fraudulently obtained an order of partition on 09.03.1983 in case No. 224/RA/81 from the Court of Revenue Assistant. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not impleaded in those proceedings. Pursuant to the said order of partition from the Court of Revenue Assistant, the suit lands were sold to defendant nos. 7 to 84, through sale deeds pertaining to the individual defendants, as shown in Annexure 2 to the plaint. It was the plaintiffs” case that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 84 had connived to defraud and cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs.

5. It was the plaintiffs case that when the defendants encroached upon the plaintiffs” lands in March-April, 1984, the plaintiffs came to know of the allegedly fraudulent partition order; the plaintiffs founded the plaintiff no.1. association viz. “Radha Park Plot Holder Welfare Association” and filed a suit to seek remedies against their illegal dispossession of the suit lands. Written Statements on behalf of certain defendants were filed whereas the other defendants neither appeared nor filed any written statements and were thus proceeded ex-parte.

6. In all, 14 issues (13+1) were framed and all of them were returned in favour of the