Once agricultural land becomes urbanized and used for non-agricultural purposes, it falls outside the purview of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral). - Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings by the respondents in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954[1]. It appears from the record that the Hal qua Patwari submitted a report on 16 April 2019 asserting that agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.601/2 Min situated in the revenue estate of Village Gadaipur, New Delhi was being used for non-agricultural purposes. The allegation essentially was that certain unauthorized constructions were being raised upon agricultural land. On receipt of that report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by an order of 23 April 2019 issued a "Restrainment Order" against the petitioner and directed parties to desist from carrying on further construction on the land in question. On 29 April 2019 a direction was issued for the making of a conditional order. The Revenue Assistant by a communication of 17 May 2019 passed what is described to be a "Conditional Decree" holding that he was satisfied that the land was being put to non-agricultural use and therefore called upon the petitioner to take steps that the same is converted and restored back to its agricultural character within a period of 3 months. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant writ petition came to be filed with the petitioner challenging the orders of 29 April 2019 and 17 May 2019.

[1] Act

3. The challenge to the proceeding is principally based on the ground of Revenue Assistant lacking jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act since the land in question had come to be urbanised and would thus cease to fall within the definition of "land" as employed in the Act. The submission essentially proceeds on the basis of the uncontroverted fact that the property stands comprised and covered in a notification dated 18 June 2013 issued under Section 11-A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957[2] and noting that the area would fall in a "Low Density Residential Area" in the concerned urban extension.

[2]DDA Act

4. According to Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, once the land came to be covered in the notification aforementioned in recognition of it having become urbanised and falling within a Low Density Residential Area, proceedings under the Act could not have been initiated and would be clearly barred. It was submitted that while the petitioners dispute the allegation that constructions were being made since according to them only certain repair work was being undertaken, even if one were to proceed on the basis of that allegation being true, that would not invest the revenue authorities with jurisdiction to either initiate proceedings under Section 81 of the Act or pass orders of restraint. Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsel, submitted that while land falling within an urbanised conglomeration and coming within the purview of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957[3] or the DDA Act may require parties obtaining requisite permissions from competent authorities under those enactments, that would not confer any authority or right upon the Revenue Assistant to initiate proceedings under Section 81 or to issue to an order of restraint. In any case, Mr. Yadav submitted that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled in light of the decision of this Court rendered in Sanraj Farms Private Limited Vs. Charan Singh & Another, 2019 SCC Online Del 10741. ;

[3]DMC Act

5. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Takiar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance upon a Circular of 03 July, 2013 on the basis of which it was contended that even if the land were not agricultural or fell in an urban extension, if reports of unauthorized constructions being raised is received, the revenue authorities are duty bound to intervene and to enquire whether constructions were being raised with due permission and requisit