SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent no.3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents no. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts were demarcated and matter was taken up with Chief Town Planner, MCD, for approval of lay out plan of the Society. The members of the Society, including the petitioners, were allotted different plots. The case of the petitioners was that they were illegally dispossessed from their plots by Defendant no. 1 and 2 (Respondents No. 1and2 herein) without due process of law and hence they filed a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act within six months of the dispossession reclaiming the possession. Defendant no. 1 and 2 raised objection about the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court

.and pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court relying upon Supreme Court judgment in Hatti v. Sunder Singh AIR 1971 SC 2320 and judgment of this Court in Ram Karan and Ors. v. Jagdeep Rai and Sons 79(1999) DLT 305 held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act would be applicable in this case and the suit before Civil Court was not maintainable.

3. In Hattis case (supra) Supreme Court has observed that if a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his rights, he has to approach the Revenue Assistant by an application under item 4 and if a Gaon Sabha wants a clarification in respect of any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land, it can institute a suit for declaration under item 28, and the Revenue Assistant can make a declaration of the right of such person. So far as suits for possession are concerned Section 84 read with Item no. 19 of First Schedule gives the jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession and that the suit for possession in respect of agricultural land, after the commencement of the Act can only be instituted either by a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha. This Court in Ram Karans case (supra) following the supreme Courts judgment in Hattis case (supra) had observed that plaintiffs in that suit had claimed right as a Bhumidar which right was denied by the defendant on the ground that plaintiffs had sold out their rights in the suit land. The Court observed that rights, if any, of the plaintiffs in respect of suit land were under cloud and the plaintiffs were seeking declaration of their rights as a Bhumidar and also seeking for a declaration of their possession in respect of suit land. This was apparently a dispute as to possession of the agricultural land and therefore such a dispute as to possession of agricultural land could be effectively adjudicated upon and decided under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. This Court therefore rejected the suit.

4. A preamble to The Delhi Land Reforms Act shows that The Delhi Land Reforms Act was enacted for the modification of zamindari system so as to create a uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries and for the unification of the existing tenancy laws. All provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act would show that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was primarily enacted for agr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document