IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the grant of a final opportunity to the petitioner to assert their rights regarding the disputed land, while emphasizing the absence of any expression on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 5942/2024 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1435/2024 & CM APPL. 5943/2024 (for stay)

3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:

"Certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated 17.01.2024 being no. F.8/DCF (W)/Land/Ghitorni/2023-24/12935-12942 passed by the Respondent directing the Petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from Khasra no. 607, land admeasuring 4 Bhigas 16 Biswas falling in Village Ghitorni, Delhi or in the alternative prohibition thereby restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive action in respect of the a foresaid land till an appropriate remedy can be sought in a court of competent jurisdiction."

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father and uncle of the petitioner filed an application under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 21.09.1987, asserting that the father of the applicants therein, was allotted 1 Acre of land, comprising khasra No. 607 situated in the Revenue Estate of Ghitorni, New Delhi by the then Panchayat of Village Ghitorni.

5. It is stated that during the continuance of the said allotment, the father unfortunately had passed away, leaving behind the applicants as the surviving legal heirs. Under such circumstances, a decree of declaration was sought, as provided under Section 74 (4) of the Act.

6. While the application was pending, it is stated that the same was dismissed in default on 19.03.2004, as the applicants were not duly represented.

7. It is also submitted that on 27.08.2015, when the petitioner had filed an application under Appendix 6 Rule 14 of the Act, that they realized that the application was dismissed in default and had filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 19.03.2004. The said application was dismissed by the learned SDM on 09.06.2017, which was appealed against before the learned Additional Collector, which also was dismissed on 17.09.2018. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the land upon which the application was filed seeking declaration, was included in the forest land in the year 1996, and as such, the applicants were held to be not persons, who are interested in the land.

8. The said order dated 17.09.2018 was further challenged before the Financial Commissioner under the provisions of Section 187 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner herein and others were throughout in continuance cultivatory possession of the said land, and as such, could not have been included in the forest land.

9. The Financial Commissioner had disposed of the said appeal vide the order dated 29.09.2023 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) through LR's & Another vs. Narain Singh & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261 and on the ground that the village having been urbanized by way of notification under Section 507 (a) of the DMC Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act cease to apply and as such, the proceedings pending before it became non est in law.

10. Simultaneously, the petitioner was granted sixty days to approach the appropriate forum. Apparently, the petitioner did not avail any remedy within that sixty days period.

11. Mr. Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner takes the Court through the documents placed on record, which were part of the record of the application filed under Section 74(4) of the Act and also the evidence that was brought on record by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner, to submit that, prima facie, it shows that the predecessor-in-interest, one Sh. Lakhi Chand was allotted the aforesaid land in khasra No. 607. The other officials, who were also examined, also supported the case.

12. He submit