IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once consolidation proceedings are concluded and land-holders are in possession, the requirement for an NoC under Section 30 of the EPH Act is not applicable.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a widow about 78 years of age, impugns order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), Mehrauli, New Delhi, thereby declining the petitioner's application for issuance of a No-objection Certificate (`NoC') to enable registration of a sale deed in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 91/2 situate in Village: Chandanhula, Tehsil: Mehrauli, New Delhi ad-measuring about 13 bigha and 10 biswa. (`subject land').

BRIEF FACTS

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for purposes of deciding the present petition are the following:

2.1. The petitioner and her husband purchased the subject land sometime in 1983 and constructed thereupon a farm house with a boundary wall, where the petitioner has been residing ever since.

2.2. The subject land is governed by the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (`EPH Act').

2.3. On 26.04.2003, the Consolidation Officer of Village Chandanhula passed a General Order (Robkar) which inter-alia said the following:

"It is hereby announced that the `Scheme' of consolidation of village ChandanHolla, which was announced on 01.11.2002, by the consolidation officer, has been confirmed by the settlement officer of Village ChandanHolla on 17.04.2003.

Now in pursuance of the Section 21(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation Act) Act, 1948 new fie1d numbers have come in force and repartition U/s 21(1) will be made to all Haqdars accordingly. The allotment to `Scheme kabeej' will also be made, simultaneously.

Since most of the villagers are in possession of their land they are hereby allowed to take the possession with immediate effect U/s 23(1) of the East Punjab Holdings Act, 1948, simultaneously."

(Emphasis supplied)

2.4. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the petitioner and her husband were issued a `Pass Book Consolidation' affirming their bhumidari rights over the subject land.

2.5. The petitioner's husband passed away on 25.07.2013; whereupon the subject land devolved upon the petitioner and her two daughters, who (latter) relinquished their share in the subject land in favour of the petitioner vide Relinquishment Deed dated 21.08.2013.

2.6. Vide an Agreement to Sell dated 13.04.2022 the petitioner agreed to sell the subject land to one Mr. Surender Aggarwal and one M/s Vibgyor Buildprop Private Limited (`purchasers'), which agreement is the genesis of the issue raised by way of the present petition.

2.7. Consequent to the signing of the agreement to sell, when the parties attempted to execute a sale deed and have it registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar of Assurances, the latter insisted that the parties obtain an NoC from the Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) as required under section 30 of the EPH Act.

2.8. By reason of the above, the petitioner and the purchasers filed before the Office of the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar an application dated 29.09.2022 for issuance of a land status report; which application was forwarded to the Patwari, who prepared a status report confirming that as per the revenue records bhumidari rights in respect of the subject land vest in the petitioner. The status report further observed that vide judgment dated 17.11.2021 in Uppal Housing Private Limited vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2021) SCC Online Del 5078, the Delhi High Court had set-aside an earlier order dated 04.09.2021 issued by the Tehsildar (Mehrauli); but thereafter went on to record that as per communication dated 16.09.2022 issued by the Tehsildar, registration of deeds of any kind in relation to Village Chandanhula have been stayed and it has been directed that no NoCs/Land Status Reports are to be given until further orders. By reason of communication dated 16.09.2022, the Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) did not recommend issuance of an NoC to the petitioner.

2.9. For clarity it must be mentioned that the