Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
BIJENDER KUMAR – Petitioner
Versus
FINANCIAL COMISSIONER, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS - Respondents
W.P.(C) 8810/2015 & C.M. No. 19663/2015
Decided On : 26-7-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Khosla and Mr. Jasvinder Varma.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Rajat Navet, Mr. Dalbir Thakran, Mr. Shekhar Dasi.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of the sale deed and the role of Civil Courts in deciding land title disputes under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954.
Headnote:
MUTATION - Land Ownership Dispute - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (DLRA) - Section 50(p), Section 33, Section 45 - The court discussed the provisions of the DLRA, including Section 50(p) which deals with mutation of land ownership, Section 33 which prohibits certain land transfers, and Section 45 which declares void transactions in contravention of the Act. The court also referenced relevant case law and highlighted the role of Civil Courts in deciding land title disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bijender Kumar, contested the mutation of land ownership in favor of his mother and subsequent transfer to Phool Kaur, claiming that it contravened the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (DLRA). He argued that the mutation and transfer were illegal and prejudiced his rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed by the petitioner's mother in favor of Phool Kaur was valid and had attained finality through judicial decisions. The court dismissed the petitioner's claims, stating that his submissions lacked merit and were an abuse of the court process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of land mutation and transfer, contravention of DLRA provisions, and the petitioner's claim of being prejudiced by the actions of his parents and the consolidation authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was valid, the DLRA provisions had been addressed and decided in previous court judgments, and the petitioner's failure to raise objections in a timely manner led to the dismissal of his claims.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. Petitioner before this Court is Bijender Kumar. He is the maternal grandson of Raja Ram. Raja Ram was the original owner of the land totaling 30 bighas 4 biswas in khasra No. 485/1, Village Bijwasan, Delhi. In khasra No. 272 of Village Salampur he had land measuring 7 bighas and 1 biswas. Raja Ram died without a male descendant. His only child was Khazani who was his daughter. She is the mother of the present petitioner Bijender Kumar.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the land could not devolve upon his mother and under Section 50(p) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (DLRA) on the death of Raja Ram mutation should have been recorded in his name; inadvertently the name of his mother Khazani was recorded. The petitioner was a minor at that time. His date of birth is 01.4.1971. This act of the mutation by the Revenue Authorities of the aforenoted land in the name of his mother was in contravention of Section 50(p) of the DLRA. This has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner.
3. The mother of the petitioner expired in 1974. The land was mutated in the name of the petitioner on 16.10.1993 and this continued till when the Mutation Officer recorded the name of Phool Kaur as the recorded owner of the property. This was on the strength of a sale deed purported to have been executed by Khazani in favour of Phool Kaur. Submission being that this sale deed was void as Khazani was never the original owner of the property and she could not have transferred this land to Phool Kaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 33 of the DLRA also prohibits such a transfer and where as a result of the transfer, the transferor is left with less than 8 standard acres of land and thus such a transaction (which is in contravention of the aforenoted provision) is void under Section 45 of the said Act. The entire so-called sale pursuant to which the land has now been mutated in favour of Phool Kaur is a void transaction. Additional submission being that Chandan who is the husband of Khazani and father of the petitioner had got remarried and the stand adopted by Chandan (which was in support of Khazani) was also prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Chandan who was the father of the petitioner had not watched the interest of the minor petitioner.
4. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer could not have passed any order in this matter directing the mutation of the land in favour of Phool Kaur and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 28.7.2015 (which is the order under challenge) and being a reendorsement of the order of the Consolidation Officer; for all the aforenoted reasons suffers from grave illegalities. The Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter; he could not have decided the question of title. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Ram Niwas Vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors. reported as 2008 (102) DRJ 81 (DB). Submission is that the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try and decide matters of title and the orders passed by the Civil Court deciding title in the aforenoted property thus suffers from an infirmity. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by a Bench of this Court in RFA No.44/1986 titled Phool Kaur Vs. Sardar Singh. Submission is that in this suit which was an inter se dispute between Phool Kaur (recorded owner) and Sardar Singh (purported to be the owner on the strength of an agreement to sell and other related documents etc.) a Bench of this Court had set aside the order passed by the Trial Judge and the finding returned was that the sale deed in favaour of Phool Kaur was a valid document. Submission being that this being an agricultural land the title of the said land could not have been decided by a Civil Court. I
