JUDGMENT

1. This batch of writ petitions raise the important issue of the impact of notifications issued under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957[1] and the DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1957[2] on proceedings taken under Sections 81 and 82 of the Delhi LAND REFORMS ACT , 1954[3]. While the petitioners in W.P.(C) 5627/2020 and 7887/2020 have assailed orders passed by the appellate authority in respect of closure of proceedings initiated under Section 81 of the DLR, the petitioners in W.P.(C) 7952/2020 & 7198/2021 have assailed proceedings in relation to appeals which have been preferred by the Gaon Sabha. Those appeals are directed against orders passed by the Revenue Assistants re-opening and reviewing final orders which had directed the eviction of the occupiers of the land and consequential vesting in the Gaon Sabha.

[1] DMC Act

[2] DA Act

[3] DLR

2. The issue of the applicability of the DLR once a notification comes to be issued under the DMC or the DDA Act s has fallen for consideration in the past before this Court and the consistent line which has been struck in those judgments is that once the land comes to be urbanised and forms part of a notification issued under the DMC or the DDA Act s, the provisions of the DLR would cease to have any application. The principle enunciated in those decisions essentially rests on the definition of land as comprised in Section 3 (13) of the DLR which defines "land" to mean that which is held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture, poultry farming and further expands and brings within its scope buildings appurtenant thereto, village abadis, grove lands and lands reserved for village pasture or covered by water. Section 3 (13) excludes lands occupied by buildings in belts of areas adjacent to Delhi town and which may by notification be declared as an acquisition thereto. The body of precedent which has evolved on the aforesaid question originates from the authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Indu Khorana Vs. Gram Sabha & Ors., 2010 SCC Online Del 1334. The line of decisions which have come to be rendered thereafter have essentially followed the basic principles enunciated in Indu Khorana. However, the present batch of writ petitions and the facts which obtain therein, give rise to questions such as the impact of those notifications on pending proceedings including in relation to appeals that may have been preferred and remain pending on the board of the competent appellate authorities. The respondents also place reliance on two circulars dated 3 July 2013 and 4 February 2020 to contend that notwithstanding the issuance of notifications under the DMC or the DDA Act , proceedings once commenced would be liable to be taken to their logical conclusion. With the assistance of learned counsels for respective parties who have appeared in this batch and to facilitate enunciation of the legal position which would flow in various situations that may arise, the Court has classified them under the following four broad heads: -

CASE 1 Where proceedings have not been initiated and notifications under the DMC/DDA Acts intervene.

CASE 2 Where although proceedings have been initiated or a conditional order made, notifications come to be issued before a final order directing ejectment and vesting is passed.

CASE 3 Where the notifications come to be issued after a final order of ejectment and vesting comes to be made.

CASE 4 Where a notifica