The definition of "Deputy Commissioner" as given in Sub-section (6) of S 3, is capable of two different interpretations.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. By order dated 22nd of January. 1964, in Regular Second Appeal No 247 D of 1962, passed by Justice Gurdev Singh the following two questions were referred to a larger Bench:

"(1) Whether a Revenue Assistant can declare bhumidars under Section 13 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. without there being a notification of the Chief Commissioner in his favour empowering him to discharge all or any of the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act ? and

(2) Whether a non-occupancy tenant, who is not a tenant in Shahdara Circle could be declared bhumidar under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. 1954?"

Regular Second Appeal No. 248-D of 1962 is connected with this appeal and three other appeals (Regular Second Appeals Nos. 138-D and 149 D of 1961 and 334 D of 1962). in which similar questions of law arise, have also been ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. As this Bench is required only to record answers to the two specific questions referred, it will not be necessary to go into the peculiar facts of each case which will be taken up before the learned Single Judge before whom these appeals will go after answer to the two questions have been recorded ,

2. For the purpose of understanding the circumstances in which these two questions have arisen, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts in Regular Second Appeal No. 247-D of 1962. The dispute between the parties relates to 28 Bighas and 6 Biswas of agricultural land situated in village Wazirpur. Delhi Onkar Nath, appellant in Regular Second Appeal No 248-D of 1962. was recorded as its owner Subsequently, in a suit filed by his sons Sunder Nath, Jagat Narain and Kakko alias Jai Raj it was held that the property belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of these three sons and Onkar Nath Haiti Bam and Budhu were recorded as the non-occupancy tenants of this land. Acting under the provisions of Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. the Revenue Assistant. Delhi, declared them as bhumidars. Challenging this declaration of these two persons as bhumidars of the land in dispute, two suits were filed-- one by Onkar Nath qua his 1/4th share and the other by Dr. Kidar Nath and the above-named three sons of Onkar Nath for a declaration that the grant of certificates of bhumidari rights in favour of the aforesaid two non-occupancy tenants was bad and not in accordance with law and that Onkar Nath, in one case, and Dr. Kidar Nath in the other, were entitled to be declared as bhumidars. In the case filed by Dr. Kidar Nath, an alternative prayer was made that if it is found that Kidar Nath had no title as a result of sale by the sons of Onkar Nath in his favour then the sons of Onkar Nath were entitled to Bhumidari rights. It was found by the Courts below that Dr. Kidar Nath had no right and we are not, therefore, concerned with that matter any more However, as remarked by the learned Single Judge, the rights of Onkar Nath in the one case and that of his three sons in the other have to be determined. The two main grounds, on which claim was made by the landlords in these two suits, were

(1) That the Revenue Assistant was not authorised to grant any declaration under sec-lion 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act inasmuch as he was not invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, who alone is authorised to make such a declaration; and

(2) That under Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 . non-occupant v tenants of the land which is not in Shahdara Circle (and the land in the present case is admittedly not in Shahdara Circle) are not entitled to the grant of such a declaration.

3. Both these points having been found against the plaintiffs in the two cases, they filed those second appeals in this Court. These two legal points, besides another, were dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Ramjilal V/s. Lekhi, Second Appeal No. 46-D of 1961, D/-13-3-1963 (Punj), on reference by a single Judge f