The main legal point established is that in cases under Section 84 of the DLR Act, the burden of proving continuous possession lies with the appellants, and failure to do so can result in the suit not being barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - CM APPL. 45572/2021 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA 481/2021 & CM APPL. 45571/2021

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 6365/2019 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein which in turn had challenged the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi.

2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a suit filed by the respondents under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as DLR Act) in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.1196/1 (4-16) situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Karala, Delhi. The suit was filed by the respondents claiming that the respondents are the joint co-bhumidars of the above said land. They claimed that the land was allotted to them in the consolidation proceedings. It was further claimed that the respondent nos.2 to 21 were in possession of the said land, with respondent no. 2 staying on the said land. It was further claimed that while the respondent no.2 had gone to attend some Court proceedings in Jaipur, the appellants had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the land in question and started construction over it. When respondent no.2 came back from Jaipur on 27.04.1998, he came to know of the illegal encroachment. A police complaint was filed against the appellants and thereafter a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed in a Civil Court, which was later withdrawn. The present suit under Section 84 of the DLR Act was thereafter filed.

3. In defence, the appellants claimed that the predecessor of the respondent nos.2 to 21 herein had sold the land to the appellants by way of an oral sale and put them in actual physical possession of the land in 1970. They further claimed that in the consolidation proceedings conducted in 1975-76, they were recorded as being in possession of the land. They further claimed that a General Power of Attorney dated 06.01.1988 and a receipt of Rs.25,000/- was also executed by the erstwhile owner of the land in their favour. They claimed that as they were in continuous possession since 1970 or at least since 1988, the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The Revenue Assistant vide his order dated 15.01.2003 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents.

5. Aggrieved of the above order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 24.10.2014.

6. The respondents being aggrieved of the above order, filed a Revision Petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, Delhi, which was allowed in their favour vide order dated 04.04.2019. The said order was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition, which has been dismissed vide the Impugned Order.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Financial Commissioner as also the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of limitation of three years. He submits that in defence to the said suit, the appellants were not to prove their title over land; their claim of being in continuous possession for more than three years prior to the filing of the Suit was enough.

8. Placing reliance on the copy of the list of Kayami, he submits that the names of the appellants appear as an occupier of the land during the consolidation proceedings conducted in 1975-76. He submits that therefore, the appellants were found to be in possession of the land since 1975-76 and the suit filed beyond a period of three years was clearly barred by limitation.

9. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 21, who appears on advance notice, submits that no credence can be placed to the document filed as list of Kayami with the appeal inasmuch as in the consolidation proceedings, it was the respondents who were put in pos