Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & JAYANT NATH, JJ.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION – Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3548 of 2013
Decided On : 25-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for the GNCTD.
Executive instructions cannot supersede statutory provisions, and the purpose of the Act is relevant in determining the legality of executive actions.
Headnote:
PIL - Partition Suit - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Sections 81, 82, 84, 85 - The court discussed the legality and validity of a notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi and its impact on the vesting of land in Gaon Sabha. The court also considered the purpose of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and its relevance in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed for partition of certain properties, and the court initiated a public interest litigation based on the legality of a notification regarding the vesting of land in Gaon Sabha.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi could not supersede the statutory provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and the purpose of the Act was relevant in determining the legality of the notification.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and validity of the notification, the purpose of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and the impact of the Act on the vesting of land in Gaon Sabha.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that executive instructions cannot supersede statutory provisions, and if the rules are silent, the executive can fill up the gaps and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction that the statutory provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would have full effect irrespective of any inconsistency or contrary provision in the notification.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. This is a PIL initiated on the basis of a direction of the learned Single Judge dated 02.05.2013. The background facts are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff Sh. Satish Kumar Yadav against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 seeking a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the share of the plaintiff in suit properties, viz. (i) 1/24 share of the plaintiff in Industrial Tin Shed built upon Kh. No. 29/20 on a plot measuring about 270 sq. yds. situated in the approved industrial area of Village Libaspur, (ii) 1/12 share in Residential Property bearing house No. 75 total measuring about 165 sq. yds. in old laldora abadi of Village Libaspur, Delhi and (iii) 1/24 share in the land and houses built upon plot of land measuring 2300 sq. yds. (approx.) bearing Kh. No. 33/3 (2-6) situated in the abadi of Village Libaspur, Delhi.
2. On 02.05.2013, the learned Single Judge dealing with the suit passed the following order initiating the present public interest litigation. The said order reads as follows:
“Present suit has been filed for partition.
In the present plaint it has been admitted that an earlier suit for partition filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Revenue Assistant/SDM was dismissed on the ground that the suit property had vested in Gaon Sabha under Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short Act). The said order of the Revenue Assistant/SDM was admittedly not challenged and has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the land in question had vested in Gaon Sabha under section 81 of the Act because the said property was being used for a purpose contrary to the one prescribed under the Act.
He, however, states that in view of the Notification bearing F. No. I-33/UC/UD/Policy/2007/ 20670-20686 dated 12th December, 2007 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Urban Development Department in the name of Lt. Governor, Delhi, land of unauthorised colonies and abadi vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the Act is liable to be once again treated as private property if the possession thereof had not been taken over by the Gaon Sabha and where physical possession is with the original land owners. The notification dated 12th December, 2007 is reproduced herein-below:-
“GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 9TH LEVEL, C-WING, DELHI SECRETARIAT I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI
F. No. I-33/UC/UD/Policy/2007/20670-20686
Dated : 12-12-2007
ORDER
In accordance with Para 2.2 of the revised guidelines-2007 for Regularization of Unauthorised Colonies in Delhi as received from the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India under letter No. O-33011/2/94-DDIIB-Vol.-XI dated 5th October, 2007, the Lieutenant Government of NCT of Delhi, is pleased to define the Government/Public land and/or private land as follows:
1. Land under acquisition proceedings:
Government Land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given, and the landowners have received the compensation, irrespective of current physical possession.
Private land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given but the landowners have not taken the compensation and are retaining the physical possession.
2. Gaon Sabha lands
Government land: All lands originally vested in the Gaon Sabha at the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, irrespective of the physical possession on ground and all lands subsequently vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the aforesaid Act, where the physical possession is with the Government.
Private land: All lands vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 where the physical possession is with the original landowners.”
This Court has grave doubt as to whether land which had vested in Gaon Sabha by a substantive provision of the Statute can be released/returned by an executive notification. This Court is also prima facie of the view that by virtue of the Notification dated 12th December, 2007 the Government of NCT of Delhi
