Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
North East Tribal Welfare Society (regd.) – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2257 of 2018 & CM APPL. 48641 of 2018
Decided On : 26-05-2023
DLR Act - Challenge to orders under Section 185 and 81 - [DLR Act, Section 185, Section 81] - The court discussed the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act) and its sections 185 and 81. It highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that once a notification has been published under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the provisions of the DLR Act cease to apply. The court also emphasized that once the land is urbanized, the proceedings under the DLR Act cannot continue.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside orders passed under Section 185 and 81 of the DLR Act. The petitioner's name was mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.06.2010, which had already been set aside by the court in a previous case. The respondent argued that the proceedings against the petitioner were rightly continued as they were initiated before the land was urbanized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order had already been set aside in a previous case, and the proceedings under the DLR Act could not continue after the land was urbanized. The court also held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the handing over of possession of the land to the Education Department of the Delhi Government were illegal.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to orders under Section 185 and 81 of the DLR Act, the continuation of proceedings after urbanization, and the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the handing over of possession of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 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. The court also emphasized the importance of protecting the petitioner's right to property.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, directed the return of the land to the petitioners, and instructed the respondents to consider the petitioners' case and hand over possession of their respective lands expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, District South-West, Delhi in Appeal No. 132/2014 under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act). Further, the petitioner also seeks setting aside of the order dated 08.04.2013 in Case no. 207/2010, titled as Gram Sabha Goela Khurd Vs Rajiv Chaudhary & Ors., passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)/Revenue Assistant (RA), Kapashera, Delhi. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)/Revenue Assistant (RA) in case bearing no. SDM/RA/NG/2010/D2496/147 passed under Section 81 of the DLR Act.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ruksana Bano and Others Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1434.
3. It is submitted that the order dated 24.06.2010 as issued by the SDM/RA, Government of NCT of Delhi in the aforesaid case, is also the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner herein is clearly mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the SDM/RA, which has already been set aside by this Court in the case of Ruksana Bano & Others (supra). Thus, it is submitted that the present petition be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Standing counsel appearing for the Delhi Government submits that in the present case, the proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act were initiated on 14.01.2010, whereas the notification of 04.06.2010 by which the zonal plan for District South West Delhi, Village Goela Khurd was notified by Delhi Development Authority (DDA), came to be issued only subsequently. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner were rightly continued. He further submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Financial Commissioner against the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, District South West, Kapashera, Delhi. Thus, he submits that the present petition would not be maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the documents.
6. Documents on record clearly manifest that the order dated 24.06.2010 as issued by the SDM/RA, Najafgarh, Government of NCT of Delhi that has been challenged in the present petition, has already been set aside by this Court in the case of Ruksana Bano & Others (supra). Therefore, the present case would squarely be covered by the said judgment.
7. As regards the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the proceedings in the present case can continue since the same were initiated on 14.01.2010, prior to the issuance of the notification dated 04.06.2010, by which the land in question was urbanised by issuance of zonal plan, the same is totally flawed. The fact remains that though the proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act were initiated prior to the notification of 04.06.2010, however, no finality was attached to the said proceedings. Therefore, after urbanisation of the land in question, the proceedings under the DLR Act could not have been continued.
8. Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Another Vs Narain Singh and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261 has held as under:
"36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and loses its legal significance."
9. This Court in the case of Ruksana Bano & Oth
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 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 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....
The legal principle established is that the issuance of urbanization notifications does not extinguish the right to institute or continue appeals against final orders under the Land Reforms Act.
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 a rural area is urbanised, the provisions of DLR Act cease to apply, and non-agricultural use of land is recognized.
The jurisdiction of Revenue Courts is ousted upon urbanization of the area, as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
Once an area has been urbanised, the proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act cannot continue any further.
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.
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
