JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, for (i) declaration that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.942 (4-16), 943(4-16), 944(4-16), 946 min (4-9), 947 (4-16) and 945 min. (4-9), totally measuring 28 Bighas 2 Biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has already been partitioned in accordance with the settlement recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 19th August, 2008 and in the alternative for partition of the said land declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of 3/4th undivided share therein and the two defendants viz. Charan Singh & Bhagwan Singh to be the owner of the remaining 1/4th share in the said land; and, (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said land.

2. The suit came up first before this Court on 17th April, 2018, when while issuing summons thereof, status quo with respect to title of the subject land was directed to be maintained.

3. The suit, after completion of pleadings, came up before this Court on 28th November, 2018 when the following order was passed:

"12. The suit is ripe for framing of issues.

13. The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants have handed over proposed issues which are taken on record.

14. The plaintiff has sued for declaration that the land subject matter of the suit stands partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants and in the alternative for partition of the subject land. Relief of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the land is also sought.

15. It is inter alia the defence of the defendants that the suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

16. The counsel for the plaintiff states that with the issuance of Notification dated 18th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) in exercise of powers under Section 11(A)(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, making modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021, the land ceased to be governed by the Delhi Reforms Act. Alternatively, it is contended that even if the land continues to be governed by the Delhi Reforms Act, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction, though not for partition.

17. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that though the plaintiff called upon the defendants to have the land so partitioned mutated in the records in respective bhumidari of the plaintiff and the defendants but the defendants did not join in the same.

18. I have wondered, whether not the remedy of the plaintiff therefor would be in terms of serial No.4 of Schedule I of the Delhi Reforms Act read with Section 185 thereof i.e. of applying for declaration of bhumidari rights.

19. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues are framed:

(I) Whether with the issuance of Notification dated 18th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) in exercise of powers under Section 11(a)(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the land subject matter of the suit has seized to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954? OPP