Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 609 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 46224 of 2022, 46226 of 2022 & 46227 of 2022 & LPA 618 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 46523 of 2022, 46525 of 2022, 46526 of 2022 & 46527 of 2022
Decided On : 18-07-2023
LAND REFORMS ACT - DELHI LAND REVENUE ACT - URBANIZED LAND - JURISDICTION - DEMARCATION - TITLE - WRIT PETITION - FRAUD - PUBLIC AUCTION - DISPOSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a land dispute in respect of which demarcation proceedings were ordered by the learned Single Judge. M/s Padmavati Investment Limited (PIL) preferred a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court claiming ownership of 2 bighas 7 biswas of land situated at Khasra No. 402, Village Kharera. PIL stated that they became the title holder of the property through an amalgamation order passed by the Calcutta High Court in 1967. The Appellants, Kamaljeet Bajwa and others, are bona fide purchasers/allottees of their respective shops in a convenience shopping complex constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1985. They argued that the land was urbanized vide notification dated 28.05.1966 and the demarcation application was not maintainable before the revenue authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Delhi High Court held that the demarcation application was not maintainable as the land was urbanized and the authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act or Delhi Land Revenue Act did not have jurisdiction to order any demarcation. The Court also found that PIL had played a fraud on the court by making false averments about its title to the property. The Court set aside the demarcation report and the orders passed in the Writ Petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the demarcation application was maintainable before the revenue authorities? 2. Whether PIL had played a fraud on the court? 3. Whether the Appellants were entitled to possession of the shops?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the demarcation application was not maintainable as the land was urbanized and the authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act or Delhi Land Revenue Act did not have jurisdiction to order any demarcation. 2. The Court found that PIL had played a fraud on the court by making false averments about its title to the property. 3. The Court held that the Appellants were entitled to possession of the shops as they were bona fide purchasers.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the demarcation report and the orders passed in the Writ Petition, and granted liberty to the Appellants to file an appropriate representation/application before the SDM of Hauz Khas.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Appeals i.e. LPA No. 609/2022, Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and LPA No. 618/2022, Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. are arising out of a common land dispute in respect of which demarcation proceedings have been ordered by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The facts of LPA No. 618/2022 are being dealt with hereunder.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that M/s Padmavati Investment Limited preferred a Writ Petition before this Court i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 6916/2018 titled M/s Padmvati Investment Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. stating that a Company incorporated under the Companies Act i.e., M/s Jayshree Land Development Ltd. had purchased land admeasuring 54 bighas 16 biswas situated in Village Kharera, Sub Tehsil at Police Station Mehrauli vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.1950.
3. The Petitioner M/s Padmavati Investment Limited further stated vide affidavit that by an order dated 21.11.1967 of the High Court of Calcutta passed in CP No. 281/1967 with CA No. 158/1967, M/s Jayshree Land Development amalgamated with M/s. Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill and in the year 1999, a fresh certificate was issued by the registrar of companies in respect of the newly amalgamated entity i.e. M/s. Padmavati Investment Limited, which thus, in the Writ Petition claimed itself to be the owner of 54 bighas 16 biswas of land.
4. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition further stated that out of the 54 bighas 16 biswas land, land acquisition proceedings were initiated and finally an award was passed on 22.03.1971 acquiring the land admeasuring 52 bighas 9 biswas, leaving behind 2 bighas 7 biswas from Khasra No. 402 in Village Kharera, Sub Tehsil, at Police Station Mehrauli.
5. The Petitioner further stated that compensation was paid in the matter and in respect of the remaining 2 bighas and 7 biswas, the Petitioner approached the Government for demarcation of the land. However, the same was not carried out, and, in those circumstances, the Petitioner came up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 6916 of 2018.
6. The Writ Petitioner on 15.11.2017 submitted an application to carry out demarcation of the subject land out of Khasra No. 402 and also prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the Government to release the approved demarcation report and approved demarcation plan in respect of the land in question as well as to carry out the physical demarcation of the land in question.
7. The Writ Petitioner on 30.12.2017 also deposited demarcation fee and M/s Deeba Orthographics Pvt. Ltd. which was an approved agency of the Government was approached by the Writ Petitioner to carry out the demarcation.
8. The approved authorized agency of Government i.e. M/s Deeba Orthographics Pvt. Ltd. initiated the process of demarcation of the land in question in the presence of patwari/kanoongo of Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. During the said process, on 26.08.2019, Padmavati Investment Limited was converted into a private limited company keeping in view Section 18 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the name of the company was changed to Padmavati Investment Private Limited.
9. The Respondent No.1 in the writ petition (Government of NCT of Delhi through Sub Divisional Officer) vide letter dated 16.07.2021 requested M/s Nikon Survey & Engineering Services, LLP (Respondent No.4 herein) to initiate the demarcation proceedings in the presence of all concerned parties including the Respondent No.3 (Superintendent G.A.S.P.I.O (L.A.)).
10. On 23.04.2022, demarcation proceedings were carried out by the Respondent No.4 (Additional District Magistrate). The Respondent No.1 submitted the demarcation report on 23.04.2022 along with Auto Cad Drawing before this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 6916/2018. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 has disposed of the sai
1. Authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act or Delhi Land Revenue Act do not have jurisdiction to order any demarcation in respect of urbanized land.
2. A person who plays a fraud on the court....
The court emphasized the necessity for factual determination before issuing a writ of mandamus for demarcation or measurement, and declined to interfere in the absence of such determination.
The court ruled that disputes regarding land possession and ownership require establishment of facts through appropriate statutory remedies, not simply through writ petitions.
The court clarified that allowing additional evidence for demarcation in boundary disputes is essential and does not constitute filling up a lacuna, reinforcing the importance of accurate boundary de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that boundaries shown in the sale deeds prevail over the measurement, and demarcation reports carry presumptive value of correctness unless rebutte....
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
