IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Anil Kumar Tyagi – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar Tyagi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11515 of 2022 & CM APPL. 34051 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Jurisdiction - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Urbanization - [JURISDICTION] - [DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954, Section 187] - The court held that the Revenue Assistant's order for partition was without jurisdiction due to the urbanization of the area, and subsequent proceedings before the Financial Commissioner were also deemed non-est. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Civil Court for any available remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner setting aside the consent order for partition of land by the Revenue Assistant. The petitioner argued that the Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, while the respondents contended that the area in question had been urbanized, ousting the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Assistant's order for partition was without jurisdiction due to the urbanization of the area, and subsequent proceedings before the Financial Commissioner were also deemed non-est. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Civil Court for any available remedy.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, Effect of Urbanization on Revenue Court's Jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The Revenue Assistant's order for partition was without jurisdiction due to the urbanization of the area, and subsequent proceedings before the Financial Commissioner were also deemed non-est. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Civil Court for any available remedy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Civil Court for any available remedy.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner in REV. PET. No.207/2021. By way of the impugned order, Ld. Financial Commissioner has set aside the consent order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Revenue Assistant, Civil Lines, Delhi.
2. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the Court of Financial Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, as the said revision petition was not maintainable before the learned Financial Commissioner. It is submitted that against the order of the Revenue Assistant, an appeal is to be filed before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Entry 11 of Schedule I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as DLR Act, 1954). Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that after the first appeal, second appeal can be filed before the Chief Commissioner, who is the Financial Commissioner in Delhi. Thus, he submits that a revision petition having been filed directly against the order of the Revenue Assistant dated 30.11.2021 before the Financial Commissioner, without filing any appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was improper. Order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Financial Commissioner is without any jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, it is categorically stated that the area in question i.e. Village Salempur Majra, Burari, Delhi has already been urbanized vide a notification dated 16.05.2017. Thus, she submits that after the urbanization of the village in question, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts is ousted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has also opposed the present writ petition. He submits that the order passed by the Revenue Assistant, itself was without any jurisdiction, as the urbanization of the area in question had already taken place.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has also perused the record.
6. The petitioner No.1 herein had filed a petition on 28.11.2018 before the Revenue Assistant for partition of land by invoking Section 55 and 56 of DLR Act, 1954 against petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1. All the parties duly participated in the proceedings before the learned Revenue Assistant and also submitted drawing for proposed partition of land belonging to the parties. Subsequently, by order dated 30.11.2021, the Revenue Assistant granted decree of partition in favour of the parties.
7. In terms of the order dated 30.11.2021, the Revenue Authorities have carried out the directions of the Revenue Assistant by which mutation proceedings were done. Accordingly, Khatauni was prepared. The petitioners are in possession of the same in terms of the partition deed and the revenue records since then.
8. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2021, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner under Section 187 of the DLR Act, being Revision Petition No.201/2021.
9. By the impugned order dated 29.07.2022, the Ld. Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
10. By the impugned order dated 29.07.2022, the learned Financial Commissioner has categorically held that the order passed by the Revenue Assistant was without any jurisdiction, since the area in question had already been urbanized. Thus, the learned Financial Commissioner clearly held that since the petitioners herein were claiming partition of the land, it is only the Civil Courts that would have the jurisdiction in that regard.
11. The objection of the petitioners with respect to the legality of filing revision petition before Financial Commissioner directly against the order of the Revenue Assistant, is right.
The jurisdiction of Revenue Courts is ousted upon urbanization of the area, as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
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 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....
Once an area has been declared as a Low Density Residential Area (LDRA), it ceases to be a rural area and becomes part of the urban area, leading to the cessation of the applicability of the DLR Act ....
The legal significance of proceedings under the DLR Act after urbanisation of the area in question is that they lose their legal significance, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Sin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the J&K Land Revenue Act provisions apply to the partition of land, even if covered under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.