Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Smt. Saroj Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2318 of 2023 and CM APPL. 8782 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv., for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for MCD.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel with Mr. Azad Bansala and Mr. Devvrat Tiwari, Advocates for R-2 & 3.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is determined by the urbanized nature of the area, and once an area has been urbanized, the Act ceases to have any effect or applicability to such lands.
Headnote:
Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Sealing of properties - Writ petition filed to set aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property and direction to de-seal the properties - Court held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as the area in question was urbanized and the DLR Act was not applicable - Impugned order set aside and properties directed to be de-sealed
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to set aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property and direction to de-seal the properties. The petitioners claimed that their properties were illegally sealed by the SDM, Rohini under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act) despite having valid licenses and the area being urbanized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as the area in question was urbanized, and the DLR Act was not applicable. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the properties to be de-sealed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property under Section 139 of the DLR Act was valid, considering the urbanized nature of the area and the validity of the licenses held by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an area has been urbanized, the DLR Act ceases to have any applicability to such areas. The court referred to the case of M/s Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gaon Sabha Chattarpur, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 23, which categorically held that the DLR Act would not be maintainable for urbanized lands.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 02.02.2023 was set aside, and the properties of the petitioners were directed to be de-sealed within seven working days.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 8783/2023
1. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing clear copies of annexures.
2. Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
3. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2318/2023 & CM APPL. 8782/2023
4. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for setting aside the impugned order/warrant of attachment of property dated 02.02.2023 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rohini. There is prayer for direction to the respondent no.3 to de-seal the properties of the petitioners viz (i) property beaing no. 105, Pocket-27, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi,(ii) property bearing no. 104, Pocket-27, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi and (iii) property bearing no. 118, Pocket-4 & 5, Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners no. 1 & 2 are the joint owners of the aforesaid properties.
6. The same have been illegally sealed by the SDM, Rohini/respondent no.3 herein by resorting to proceedings under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act). Further, warrant of attachment of property dated 02.02.2023 have been issued by virtue of which the properties of the petitioners have been sealed.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners are running guest house and lodging house in their respective properties with valid Municipal Health Trade Licence issued from the office of respondent no.1 i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Further, the petitioners have also obtained necessary licenses from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee qua their respective properties, which have also been attached along with the present writ petition.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioners have applied for grant of licenses from the office of DCP licensing qua their respective properties which is pending consideration with the competent authority. It is also submitted that the licenses already obtained and applied by the petitioners were much prior in time to the date on which properties of the petitioners have been sealed by the respondent no.3 on 06.02.2023.
9. It is submitted that in pending criminal proceedings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), North-West District, Rohini Court in the matter pertaining to anticipatory bail application, issued various directions to the SDM, Rohini to appear in person and file report with respect to actions against the guest house/lodging house operating in the area in question. Thus, it is submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice and without adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice and without verifying the fact that the subject properties are running with valid licenses, the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 has been issued, pursuant to which the properties of the petitioners have been sealed.
10. It is further submitted that the area in question i.e. Rohini, is an urbanised area, wherein the provisions of the DLR Act will not be applicable.
11. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
12. At the outset, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that there is a Circular by the Delhi Police that in cases whether licenses have been applied for and the application is pending, then in that eventuality a property will not be sealed. He draws the attention of this Court to the circular which has been attached as annexure P-16 to the present petition.
13. Learned standing counsel further submits that the department has verified the documents and that the petitioners have valid Trade Health License duly issued by the MCD.
14. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and 3 submits that as per verification, the land in question stands urbanised. He further submits that the action has been taken by the concerned SDM, since there were directions from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge during the cours
