The dominant use of land must remain agricultural despite construction; proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act are barred by limitation if not initiated within three years of unlawful use.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J.(Oral)--This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition No.161/2009.

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the written report of the halqa patwari dated 11.03.2000 proceedings were initiated against the respondent under Section 81 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ("DLR Act") by Halka Patwari regarding the land of the respondent situated in the revenue estate of Village Bijwasan which was allegedly converted into non-agriculture user by constructing a house. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a conditional order dated 21.03.2001 directing the respondent to convert back the suit land into agricultural purposes. The said site was inspected again in March, April, and May, 2001 and a fresh report was called from Halqa Patwari. The SDM before whom the proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act were initiated, dropped the proceedings noting that the construction raised by the respondent is as per the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and as per the report dated 30.07.2001 submitted by the Tehsildar, there is no violation of Section 81 of the DLR Act.

3. The Gaon Sabhan preferred an appeal against order dated 30.07.2001 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 17.12.2008. A revision petition in this regard was filed before the Financial Commissioner challenging order dated 17.12.2008 which was also dismissed on 31.05.2011(the impugned order).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the reports put up before the Revenue Assistant/concerned Collector are incorrect reports as the photographs demonstrate that a large residential house has been constructed. It has also been submitted that there is also complete absence of agriculture use. Hence, it is pleaded that the proceedings have been rightfully initiated under Section 81 of the DLR Act. It is pleaded that the impugned orders dated 05.11.2001, 17.12.2008 and 31.05.2011 passed by the SDM, Vasant Vihar, Collector/Dy.Commissioner(S.W.) and Financial Commissioner, respectively have been passed wrongly.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that a finding of fact has been recorded by the three functionaries who are the appropriate authorities to adjudicate the petition under Section 81 of the DLR Act. The findings of fact are that there is no violation of the provisions of the DLR Act and no proceedings can be initiated under Section 81 of the DLR Act as the property is being predominantly used as agricultural land mainly for plantation of vegetables and flowers. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Gaon Sabha Maidangarhi, (2014) 210 DLT 1. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihari Lal & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Etc., AIR 1979 Del 84.

6. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaon Sabha Samhalka Vs. R.N. Sahni & Ors., ILR (2004) 2 Del 128 to contend that the plea now raised by the petitioner is barred by limitation. As per the aforesaid judgment, the period of limitation is three years from the actual date of unlawful use of land. In the present case, the plan was sanctioned by the MCD in 1989. The notice has been issued on 20.03.2000. It is urged that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of