IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Sh. Charan Singh (since Deceased Through Lrs) & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5949 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 23357 of 2023 & 23358 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Urbanisation - Bhumidari Rights - The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for declaring bhumidari rights after considering that the land in question had already been urbanised and the proceedings under the DLR Act would not be maintainable in an urbanised area.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a declaration as the bhumidar of certain lands, which had been the subject of legal proceedings since 1981. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the SDM for hearing afresh, and subsequent appeals were dismissed on the grounds of urbanisation.
Finding of the Court:
The court deemed it expedient to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach a Civil Court, considering that the land in question already stood urbanised and the proceedings under the DLR Act would not be maintainable in an urbanised area. The petitioner was also granted the liberty to seek exclusion of time spent in the proceedings under the DLR Act from the Civil Court under Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the proceedings under the DLR Act in an urbanised area, and the petitioner's right to approach a Civil Court for the declaration of bhumidari rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the land in question had already been urbanised, and the legal proceedings under the DLR Act would not be maintainable in such an area.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for appropriate prayer with respect to the declaration of his rights qua the land in question.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 23358/2023 (Application under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the petitioner for exemption from filing of certified/original annexures.)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5949/2023 & CM APPL. 23357/2023 (Application under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim-relief.)
3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for declaration as the bhumidar of the lands admeasuring 43 bighas forming part of khasra no. 784 situated in the revenue estate of Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that a suit was filed in the year 1981 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for declaration of bhumidari rights. The petitioner was declared as a bhumidar by the learned SDM. Against the said order, the Gram Sabha filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appeal filed on behalf of Gram Sabha was allowed by the learned ADM. Thereafter, the matter went right upto the Supreme Court. By order dated 05.02.1996, in SLP No. 8960/1986, the Supreme Court remanded back the matter to the SDM for hearing afresh.
5. It is contended that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed an application for its impleadment before the learned SDM on the ground that it was a necessary party. Subsequent to its impleadment, the DDA moved an application for rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that statutory notice had not been served upon the DDA. On this ground, the petition as filed by the petitioner for declaration of bhumidari rights, was dismissed by the learned SDM.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM) was dismissed on the ground that the land already stands urbanised.
7. The appeal of the petitioner before the Ld. Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on similar ground of the land having been urbanised. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted to the position that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Another Vs Narain Singh and Others, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, the proceedings under the Revenue Act will not be maintainable after urbanisation of the land in question. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks prayer in the present petition to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach Civil Court.
9. Issue notice.
10. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and 4 respectively.
11. Considering the facts of the case, wherein the present petition essentially emanates from the proceedings pertaining to the claim of the petitioner for declaring the petitioner as bhumidar of the land in question and considering the fact that the land in question already stands urbanised and that the various proceedings under the DLR Act will not be maintainable in an area which already stands urbanised, it is deemed expedient to grant liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for.
12. As and when the petitioner files appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court, the petitioner herein would have the liberty to seek exclusion of time spent in the proceedings under the DLR Act from the Civil Court under Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 by bringing to notice of the Civil Court the litigation which the petitioner herein has been pursuing since the year 1981.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for appropriate prayer with respect to declaration of his rights qua the land in question.
The legal proceedings under the DLR Act would not be maintainable in an urbanised area, and the petitioner was granted liberty to approach a Civil Court for the declaration of bhumidari rights.
The judgment established the principle that the provisions of the DLR Act cease to apply after urbanization of the land, as interpreted from Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 and the decision in Mohind....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the interpretation of its provisions regarding bhumidari rights, res judicata, and the lim....
The legal principle established is the need for a time-bound resolution of proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act to prevent infringement of legal rights.
The authority must evaluate claims for bhumidhari rights based on merits before judicial intervention is warranted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a challenge to a Bhumidhari Certificate filed 50 years later was grossly barred by delay and laches, and that the Appellant, who was not in ph....
The court emphasized the importance of adjudicating upon the petitioner's application for correction of revenue entries and granted the petitioner liberty to seek mutation of the land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of LSR/NOC by the respondent No.2 was not justified, and the objections raised under the Land Restriction Act were not applicable ....
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.