Agricultural land succession is exclusively governed by the DLR Act, rendering claims based on the Hindu Succession Act inapplicable if succession predated amendments.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 1736/2022

(under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by defendant nos.1 and 3)

1. The instant application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by defendant nos.1 and 3.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-defendant nos.1 and 3 submits that the present civil suit is barred by law, as the relief sought is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the DLR Act).

3. Learned counsel submits that it remains an undisputed fact that the father of the plaintiff, Mr. Udami Ram, who passed away on 12.10.1991, was the recorded bhumidar of the agricultural lands mentioned in paragraph no. 2(a) and 2(b) of the plaint.

4. He submits that upon the demise of Mr. Udami Ram, the succession of the said agricultural land was effected in favour of his five sons, namely, defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, along with Mr. Surender Singh, the father of defendant no. 9 herein. Upon the subsequent demise of Mr. Surender Singh, his legal heir, defendant no. 9, succeeded to his share in accordance with Section 50 of the DLR Act, with the corresponding mutation duly recorded in the revenue records.

5. He further submits that since the succession to the properties in question took place in 1991, it was solely governed by Section 50 of the DLR Act, as the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , were then subject to Section 4 (2) of the said Act, which preserved the application of laws governing agricultural land tenure. He further submitted that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which omitted Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , was not in force at the time when succession to the suit property was determined. Thus, he contends that the devolution of agricultural land in the present case was solely governed by the DLR Act, which is a complete code in itself. In support of this proposition, he places reliance on the judgments of Ram Mehar v. Dakhan , [1972 SCC OnLine Del 64], and Hatti v. Sunder Singh , [2(1970) 2 SCC 841]

6. Learned counsel further refers to the provisions of the DLR Act and rights in agricultural land stood abolished, and only the rights of tenure holders were recognized. He contends that this is the reason why the terms Bhumidhars and Asamis were specifically used to describe tenure holders over agricultural land instead of owners. To substantiate this aspect, he places reliance on the decision in Nathu v. Hukam Singh³

7. Additionally, he argues that the DLR Act does not recognize the concept of Joint Hindu Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties within its framework, as the said Act exclusively governs the devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural land. In support of this contention, he relies on the judgment in Brij Narain Aggarwal v. Anup Kumar Goyal , [42007 SCC OnLine Del 924]

8. Learned counsel for the applicants places reliance on the decisions of this Court in Indu Rani v. Pushpa , [5(2022) 6 HCC (Del) 661]and Naresh Kumar v. Tadbir Singh , [62024 SCC OnLine Del 5755], to contend that the rights of lineal descendants under Section 50 of the DLR Act stood crystallized and remain unaffected by the subsequent deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .

9. Learned counsel further submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma , [7(2020) 9 SCC 1], has no application to the present case, as the suit properties do not fall within the category of Joint Hindu Family (JHF) properties. He contends that since the properties in question