Point of Law: The order of vesting made under Section 81 and 82 of Act divests and deprives owner or occupier of all rights existing in the land. Vesting results in Gaon Sabha acquiring absolute title and rights over land free from all encumbrances.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a) The respondents nos. 1 to 3 be directed to consider the representation dated 22.1.2019 made by the petitioner and to withdraw the order dated 14.10.2005 regarding vesting of land with the Gaon Saba under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act;

b) Set aside the order dated 14.10.2005, passed in case no.59/SDM/RA/(PN)/2004 under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, titled as 'Gaon Sabha Hastsal versus Shiv Nath Tyagi & others.'

c) Cost of the present proceedings may be awarded in favour of the petitioner…..”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Shri Shiv Nath Tyagi, Shri Rakesh Kumar, Shri Umesh Kumar, Shri Sat Prakash and sons of late Shri Hardwari Lal, were bhumidars of properties bearing Khasra numbers 8/8/1/(0-12), 8/7/2 (1-16), 9/2 (1-4), 13 (4-16), 14 (4-16), 15 (4-16) of Village Hastsal, Near Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.

3. All the aforesaid persons sold certain lands to various other persons including, one Shri Jagbir Singh who further sold a part of land in the form of plots bearing no. 107 to 111 out of Khasra Number 8/7/2 to one Shri Surinder Kumar Chawla in the year 1987. On 24th January, 2000, the land in question was then purchased by the petitioner from the legal heirs of Shri Surinder Chawla.

4. On the said land, proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the ‘DLR Act’) have been initiated by the Gaon Sabha, Hastsal against Shri Shiv Nath Tyagi and others arising out of order passed in ‘Gaon Sabha Hastsal v. Shiv Nath Tyagi’. On 14th September, 2004, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred as the ‘SDM’) passed an order and directed the landowners:

“to restore the above said land into agricultural use within three months, failing which the land shall be decreed, to be vested in Gaon Sabha without any further notice and the respondents shall be ejected there from.”

5. On 14th October, 2005, the learned SDM/Revenue Assistant had passed an order, observing as under:

“the respondents have not complied with the orders and the land in question has not been brought back into cultivatory use. The Boundary walls had been constructed on agricultural land and houses have been built up there. Since the respondents have not complied the orders mentioned above and have violated the provisions under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, the abovementioned Khasras and land will be vested in the Gaon Sabha with immediate effect.

The petitioner, however, claims to be unaware of the said proceedings at that point in time.

6. An injunction petition was filed by Shri Shiv Nath Tyagi and others against Shri Jagbir Singh, Shri Rajesh Kumar and the petitioner, who was a prospective buyer at that time, due to illegal construction and demolition of Shiv Nath’s part of land, in the year 1999. On 22nd November 2018, the suit so filed was dismissed by Civil Judge, District-Central, Tis Hazari Court.

7. Thereafter, on 3rd January 2019, the petitioner applied for the copy of the Khatoni for getting the property mutated in his name, with the intention to sell the property. However, he came to know that all the properties pertaining to the Khasra numbers mentioned above had already been vested in the Gaon Sabha vide order dated 14th October, 2005.

8. On 22nd January, 2019, the petitioner made a detailed representation, explaining the facts to respondent nos. 2 and 3 for recalling the order dated 14th October, 2005, along with all the documents of sale, which was sent through speed post on the very same day. But no reply/ order was sent by the respondents. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court by way of instant petition for recalling of order dated 14th October 2005.

SUBMISSIONS

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the land in question had already been urbanized vide notificat