Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act requires conditional orders for eviction, allowing occupants to restore land use, failing which eviction may be enforced.

JUDGMENT

1. These two writ petitions were, with the consent of parties, taken up for hearing together. While Writ Petition No. 3520/1994 challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 114/1994 assails an order passed by the Lieutenant Governor[1]. Since the litigation itself has had a chequered history, it would be pertinent to notice the following essential facts.

[1] LG

A. BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The dispute itself centers around land admeasuring 57 bighas and 4 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 401 (2-7), 402 (3-3), 403 (4-16), 404 (5-18), 405 (3-19), 406 (6-2), 407 (4-16), 408 (4-17), 409 (2-13), 410 (4-16), 411 (4-16), 412 (6-11), 413 (5-3), 414 (4-16) and 415/2 (1.00) situated in village Siraspur, North-West district of Delhi. Undisputedly this piece of land was originally owned by Sat Naraian, Narender Kumar and Dev Raj Kohli, who were the recorded landholders. The original landholders are stated to have sold this land to one Land Trade Corporation in terms of sale deeds dated 29 January and 5 March 1970. The petitioner on the other hand asserts being in cultivatory possession of this very land since 1977-78. It is additionally urged that the land was purchased by him from the original land holders in 1976-77 vide a registered sale deed of 2 April 1983 executed in his favour. These are disclosures that were made in proceedings initiated by the respondents and shall be referred to in the subsequent parts of this judgment. It has also come on the record that although Land Trade Corporation applied for mutation in its favour on the basis of the original sale deeds executed in January and March of 1970, that application was refused. The dispute leading to the present matter falling before this Court emanates from an application dated 20 February 1982 filed by the petitioner seeking benefits envisaged under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954[2]. Section 85 relates to situations where claims of adverse possession may be raised by persons taking or retaining possession of land forming part of the holding of a bhumidhar, asami or the Gaon Sabha as the case may be. It proceeds on the premise that if the bhumidhar, asami or the Gaon Sabha fail to institute a suit for eviction as contemplated under Section 84 of the Act within the period of limitation prescribed, the occupant can claim rights by way of adverse possession and petition for being granted the status of a bhumidhar or asami.

[2] the Act

3. The application under Section 85 as moved by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Revenue Assistant in terms of the order of 25 June 1983. The Revenue Assistant while rejecting the said application essentially took note of the fact that the khasra girdawari for the concerned years, namely, 1977-78, recorded the plots as falling in the category of "gairmumkin" and thus not being used for agricultural purposes. The Revenue Assistant further went on to observe that the petitioner had got his name entered on the revenue records as an encroacher even though the records would suggest otherwise. He ultimately went on to record the following conclusions:-

"In view of the above facts, and the arguments heard, I have come to the conclusion that the land in question remains in the shape of "Parti" and not being cultivated by the applicant which is in contravention of u/s 81 of DLR Act. I, therefore, do hereby dismissed the suit u/s 85 of DLR Act. Subsequently suit land is vested in the gaon sabha u/s 81 DLR Act. A copy of this order is to be sent to Teh. (Delhi) with the direction to hand over the possession of the suit land to the gaon sabha Siras Pur, Delhi. Announced in open court."

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. That appeal came to be allowed on 26 September 1983 and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. In November 1984, the anti Sikh riots took place in Delhi and it was the case of the petitioner that the gurdwara whi