The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Revenue Assistant for ejectment, the prescribed procedure under Rule 170, and the limitation for raising pleas before the appropriate authority.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for directions against the respondents thereby prohibiting them from illegal and forcibly taking possession of any portion of the land comprised in Khasra no. 34/23 min situated within the revenue estate of Village Narela, Delhi without due process of law.

2. By way of notice dated 25.04.2016 issued by the Office of the Block Development Officer (North), Registrar Office, Alipur, Delhi, various persons including petitioner herein was directed to remove the encroachment over Khasra No. 34/18/2 (1.12) of village Mamurpur. The said notice is reproduced as below:

"OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (NORTH), REGISTRAR OFFICE, ALIPUR, DELHI

I.NO 570

Dt. 25.04.2016

NOTICE

The undersigned has been informed to direct that the permission for removal of encroachment over Khasra No.34//18/2 (1-12) of village Mamurpur has been approved by the District Magistrate (North) on 21.01.2016, hence you are asked to remove all your goods/articles otherwise the department shall remove the same on 29.04.2016 and this office will not be liable for the loss and damages.

SD/-

(BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER)

(NORTH) ALIPUR, DELHI-36"

3. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the purported notice dated 25.04.2016, demolition action has been taken by the respondents. It is submitted that the said purported notice dated 25.04.2016 has never been served upon the petitioner.

4. Ld. Counsel relies upon Sections 84 and 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR). The said Sections are reproduced as below:

"84. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title.--

[(1)] A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, and--

(a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhar or Asami, or

(b) Where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha,

shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidhar, Asami or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be and shall also be liable to pay damages.

[(2) Where any person against whom a decree for ejectment from any land has been executed in pursuance of a suit under sub-section (1) re-enters or attempts to re-enter upon such land otherwise than under authority of law, he shall be presumed to have done so with intent to intimidate or annoy the person in possession or the Gaon Sabha, as the case may be, within the meaning of section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860).]

..........

86A. Ejectment by Revenue Assistant of persons occupying land without title.--Notwithstanding anything contained in section 84,85 and 86, the Revenue Assistant also may, on receiving information or on his own motion, eject any person who is liable to be eject form any land on a suit of the Gaon Sabha under any of those section, after following such procedure as may be prescribed."

5. A perusal of the aforesaid Sections of the DLR Act, 1954 clearly show that the Revenue Assistant has the authority to take action upon receiving any information or on his own motion take action for ejectment of any person who is liable to be ejected from any land of the Gaon Sabha, after following such procedure as may be prescribed.

6. Ld. Counsel for petitioner relies upon Rule 170 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 to submit that the prescribed procedure is given under Rule 170 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954. Thus, he submits that since the said purported notice dated 25.04.2016 was never served upon the petitioner, therefore, any action taken by the respondents pursuant to the notice dated 25.04.2016 is illegal.

7. He further submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question and that there are two registered Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Santosh Tripathi