Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
ST. MARYS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY – Petitioner
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL, MAGISTRATE/REVENUE ASSISTANT – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5608 of 2016, C.M. APPL. Nos. 23312 of 2016, 49627 of 2018
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Land Reforms Act - Agricultural Land - Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act - [Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which restricts the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The court emphasized the importance of using the land solely for agricultural activities and quashed the orders passed against the petitioner based on the confirmation that the land was indeed being used only for agricultural purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Educational Society, challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which initiated proceedings against them for allegedly using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner claimed that the land was being used solely for agricultural activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed carrying out only agricultural activities on the land in question, confirming the petitioner's claim.
Issues: The main issue raised was the alleged non-agricultural use of the land by the petitioner, leading to proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the confirmation that the land was being used only for agricultural purposes, leading to the quashing of the orders passed against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant and the Financial Commissioner, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by an Educational Society. By way of the present petition challenge is to the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner.
2. The land in question was purchased by nuns who are members of St. Mary’s Educational Society. The said land is stated to have been purchased through registered sale deeds in Ibrahimpur Village, Delhi, land measuring around 8 acres.
3. It is submitted that at the time of purchase of said land by the society two buildings were in existence, one building was being used for residential house which was measuring around 150 sq. mtrs. and second building was only godown. It is submitted that the entire stretch of land was only being used for agricultural purposes. Even today land in question is being used for agricultural purposes only.
4. It is submitted that petitioner had constructed a wall around their property. Thus, proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLRA) was initiated against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner was using land for non-agricultural purposes.
5. Proceedings were held in the matter and subsequently vide order dated 24.03.2009, the SDM/Revenue Assistant ordered dropping of the proceedings against the petitioner. The respondents subsequently filed appeal under Section 185 of the DLRA. It is submitted that the said appeal has now since been dismissed by order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) (North).
6. Besides the aforesaid proceedings wherein the Gaon Sabha had filed an appeal which had concluded vide order dated 26.07.2021 passed by ADM (North), there were other parallel proceedings which were going on before the Revenue Assistant/SDM. Thus, an additional order dated 04.08.2012 was passed by the Revenue Assistant. By way of the said order, it was declared that the petitioner herein had converted the nature of the land by carving out plots thereby contravening the provisions of Section 81 of the DLRA. Thus, it was directed that the land, which is land bearing Khasra No. 804(4-16), 805/1 (3-11), 803/1 (2-4) situated in the revenue estate of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi, shall be used only for agricultural purposes. In case the same was not done, they shall be ejected from the land and their rights on the land shall stand extinguished. Subsequently, by order dated 24.11.2012, the said additional order dated 04.08.2012 was made permanent.
7. Subsequently, warrant of possession dated 31.12.2012 was issued by the Revenue Assistant/SDM, the said warrant of possession reads as under:
Whereas the property vide Khasra Nos. 804 (4-16), 805/1 (3-11) and 803/1 (2-4) in village Ibrahim Pur in the occupation of J/D i.e. St. Mary Educational Society has been finally ordered/decided to vest in Gaon Sabha Ibrahim Pur the D/H in the petition. You are hereby directed to put the said D/H, petitioner i.e. Gaon Sabha Ibrahim Pur in possession of the same after demolition of the construction/structures made and attached over the concerned land, and you are hereby authorized to remove any person bound by the order/decree who may refuse to vacate the same. You are also authorized to take the requisite police aid to effect the same.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 31.12.2012.
(RAJANISH KUMAR SINGH)
REVENUE ASSISTANT/SDM
SUB-DIVISION ALIPUR: DELHI.”
8. Thus, by way of the warrant of possession it was directed that the land which was in occupation of the petitioner herein shall vest in Gaon Sabha, Ibrahim Pur. The petitioner herein was directed that the Gaon Sabha, Ibrahim Pur be put in possession of land in question after demolition of the construction/structures made.
9. Subsequently, final order dated 04.01.2013 was passed.
10. After passing of the final order dated 04.01.2013, demolition of existing structure was undertaken on behalf of Revenue Assistant/SDM on 05.01.2013. Thus, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dat
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which restricts the use of agricultural land for non-a....
Proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act after urbanization of the area were deemed illegal and non-est, leading to the setting aside of the vesting and conditional orders.
Once a notification is published under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the provisions of the DLR Act cease to apply, and any proceedings under the DLR Act after urbanization are without jurisdiction....
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 initiat....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that once the property ceases to answer to the description of land as defined under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, proceedings under the Act cannot....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a particular area has been recognized as urbanized, proceedings under the DLR Act cannot be initiated or continued.
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 o....
Once an area has been urbanised, the provisions of the DLR Act cease to apply to the said area, and any proceedings pending under the DLR Act after urbanisation of an area in question cannot continue....
Proceedings under the DLR Act after the urbanization of the area were deemed non-est and illegal, leading to the setting aside of the final order and quashing of the pending proceedings.
Once a rural area is urbanised, the provisions of DLR Act cease to apply, and non-agricultural use of land is recognized.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
