Balbir Singh vs Shri S.S. Yadav and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—The petitioner in this case is claiming to be in actual cultivatory physical possession of the land bearing khasra Nos. 33/23/1 (2-5), 47/4/2 (4-13), 7 (4-0), 13/3 (0-8), 14 (2-8), 15 (7-4), 16 (7-4), 17 (2-8), 24/2 (2-0), 25/1 (4-8), 25/2 (0-8), 46/11/1 (1-14), 20/2 (1-15), 21/1 (3-0), 21/2 (1-16), 47/6/2 (1-05), 48/5/2 (1-13), 55/11/1 (0-17), 56/1/2(2-8) and 133 Min. (13-10) situated within the revenue estate of village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli, in the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "land"). The claim of the petitioner is that by virtue of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and the rules framed thereunder, he has become the owner/bhumidar of the land.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondent in failing to record the cultivatory possession of the petitioner in the revenue records after 1982-83 and sought redressal of his grievance by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 3699/1991 before this Court. By an order passed on 17th January, 1995, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition whereby the court directed thus:

We direct the respondents to maintain the record of rights, including the Annual Register, in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, without taking into consideration the amendments carried out to Rules 49, 63 and Form P.5 by virtue of the Delhi Land Revenue (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 1989, as notified on 30th November, 1989.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

It is an admitted position that the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court by its judgment dated 5th May, 2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6821/1995 and other connected appeal which is reported at Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. Vs. Shri Siri Ram, While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue authorities, the court had directed thus:

As noticed earlier while preparing record-of-rights u/s 20 of the Land Revenue Act persons cultivating or others occupying land as tenure or sub-tenure holder as determined under the Land Reforms Act have to be specified in the said register. This has to be done as record-of-rights would be used for determining the rights and liabilities of the tenure and sub-tenure-holder under the Land Reforms Act.

The admitted position is that the Revenue Authorities have recorded the cultivatory possession of the petitioner in the revenue record for the years 1995-1998. They, however, stopped recording the cultivatory possession of the petitioner thereafter compelling the petitioner to assail the action by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 2883/1998.

This writ petition was dismissed by this Court which order was assailed by the petitioner by way of LPA No. 377/2002 in the Division Bench. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench by an order dated 13th March, 2002 directing the respondent thus:

Having regard to the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the decision of Ram Swarup Kathuria and Anr. (supra), we direct the concerned revenue authority to hold an enquiry with regard to the issue whether the appellant is in cultivatory possession of the land in question. In case the appellant is found to be in possession of the land, the revenue authority shall act in accordance with law. Before passing any order the concerned revenue authority shall hear the appellant, Gaon Sabha and the Horticulture Department.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.

The petitioner contends that pursuant to this order, the respondent conducted an enquiry. It is submitted that the patwari made a report dated 20th April, 2002 stating that as per the record, the land in Khasra Nos. 33/23/1 (2-5), 47/4/2 (4-13), 7 (4-0), 13/3 (0-8), 14 (2-8), 15 (7-4), 16 (7-4), 17 (2-8), 24/2 (2-0), 25/1 (4-8), 25/2 (0-8), 46/11/1 (1-14), 20/2 (1-15), 21/1 (3-0), 21/2 (1-16), 47/6/2 (1-05), 48/5/2 (1-13), 55/11/1 (0-17), 56/1/2(2-8) and 133 Min. (13-20) was recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. It has further been stated that the petitioner had sown crop but as the ownership vested with the Gram Sabha, it should not be recorded in Girdawri.

Based on this report, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 3767/2002 in which interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner on 1st June, 2002. The respondents before the court stated that the land was found ploughed but the name of the cultivator could not be ascertained. In these circumstances, by an order passed on 3rd February, 2004, the court passed the following directions:

In view of the aforesaid, I consider it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry in respect of the aforesaid aspect and a site inspection shall be carried out on 16.02.2004 at 11.00 a.m. so that the petitioner can be present at site. The Deputy Commissioner may issue notice to all other parties as deem appropriate and shall complete the enquiry within a maximum period of one month from the said date. In case the petitioner is found in cultivating possession, needless to say, necessary entries in accordance with law shall be made.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Compliance report be filed within 8 weeks.

The Orders dated 10.06.2002 shall continue to enure for benefit of the petitioner till the aforesaid enquiry is completed.

The petitioner has complained that despite these directions and the report of the revenue authorities, the respondent No. 2 failed to take action in accordance with law and filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on 24th February, 2004 alleging trespass by the petitioner.

This act of approaching the police authority has been complained of as contumacious by the petitioner.

Perusal of the criminal complained filed by the respondent No. 2 shows that the complaint was made by the Deputy Commissioner (South), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi along with the Tehsildar, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as well as the Director (Horticulture). They have complained that despite the pendency of the enquiry proceedings and pursuant to the order passed by the court, the petitioner had raised some unauthorised structure on the subject land and had also dumped material with the intention to grab the land.

Certainly, there was no prohibition under any orders of the court against the authorities from taking action against the petitioner for any illegal acts by it. In any case, this Court had also not permitted the petitioner to raise the construction on the subject land. Admittedly, an enquiry was pending in respect of the same under orders of this Court.

The petitioner has contended that the Deputy Commissioner (South) examined the matter in terms of the order of this Court dated 3rd February, 2004. He thereafter passed an order dated 15th March, 2004 which was assailed by the petitioner by way of writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 4738/2004 in this Court.

The writ petition was thus disposed of by the court by an order passed on 5th April, 2004 whereby this Court held thus:

In view of the conspectus of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the petitioner is impugning the order dated 15.03.2004 which is in performance of the statutory duties by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner first has to avail of the remedies which are available under the Act. Section 187 of the Act empowers the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter in issue and in my considered view the petitioner has to approach the Financial Commissioner first. Needless to say that in case the order of the Financial Commissioner is against the petitioner, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court. Needless to say that taking into consideration the nature of the controversy, the allegations and the counter allegations, the Financial Commissioner is expected to call for all the records and pass an order only thereafter. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Financial Commissioner and a speaking order shall be passed in respect of the same.

This writ petition was thus disposed of in the above terms by the court holding that the petitioner was required to avail the remedy available under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

The petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Delhi) u/s 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 assailing the order dated 15th March, 2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, was registered as case No. 74/2004 and dismissed by an order passed on 20th April, 2004.

The petitioner again challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 6333/2004. This writ petition was disposed of by the court by an order dated 7th May, 2004 whereby the court set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 20th April, 2004 holding that the order had been passed cryptically without recording reasons for the same. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to the financial commissioner. It is an admitted position that the matter is still pending before the Financial Commissioner.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has complained that actions of the respondents are in violation of the orders dated 17th January, 1995, 3rd February, 2002 and 3rd February, 2004. It has further been urged that the respondents have acted contumaciously in lodging a criminal complaint based whereon a case has been registered by the police against the petitioner. The petitioner has also made a grievance that despite the said order, the respondents have issued a tender notice dated 2nd July, 2004 for constructing a boundary wall on the petitioner''s land and that despite the said order, the revenue authorities on the directions of the contemnors, have on 10th September, 2004, recorded the possession of the Department of Horticulture over the subject land.

On a careful consideration of the matter, I find that this Court, by virtue of the orders passed on 17th January, 1995, 13th February, 1992 and 3rd February, 2004, directed the respondents to maintain the record of rights holding the possession on the spot. By an order dated 13th February, 2002, the court directed the authorities to hold enquiry as to whether the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was only upon such a finding that the revenue authority was required to act in accordance with law. Thus, there was no directions that the authorities have to record the possession of the petitioner irrespective of the result of their enquiry and consideration.

So far as the directions made by the court on 3rd February, 2004 are concerned, I find that the court had directed the Deputy Commissioner again to hold an enquiry in respect to the petitioner''s claim of cultivatory possession on the land. The court had also directed a site inspection and thereafter, upon notice to all parties, the Deputy Commissioner was required to complete the enquiry into the petitioner''s claim that he was in cultivatory possession and necessary entries in accordance with law were required to be made.

It is an admitted position on the record laid before this Court that the Deputy Commissioner had concluded that the possession of the petitioner could not be recorded. The petitioner has assailed such order by way of WP (C) No. 4738/2004. In these proceedings by the order dated 5th April, 2004, the court has not accepted the challenge of the petitioner and has diverted the petitioner to statutory remedy of an appeal assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner based on the result of his enquiry .Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked the statutory remedy of a revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is still pending before the Financial Commissioner.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the enquiry, as directed, has been conducted. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the conclusion reached by the respondents, has assailed the same by way of the writ petition and thereafter by way of revision petition which is still pending before the commissioner. In this background, certainly, it cannot be held that the respondents are in wilful default or violation of any orders passed by the court.

So far as the petitioner''s contention that the respondents have lodged a complaint with the police authorities against him, is concerned, I find no restriction against lodging the complaint.

It now becomes necessary to deal with the petitioner''s submission that the revenue and the police authorities have found the petitioner in cultivatory possession on the site. In this background, reliance is placed on the report of the patwari dated 1st April, 1998 and the police reports dated 9th January, 2002 and 22nd January, 2002. So far as the complaint dated 9th January, 2002 is concerned, it appears that Mehrauli Block Incharge has made a complaint to SHO to the effect that the petitioner has ploughed government land with a tractor behind the back of the government employees. A complaint was made that the petitioner was intending to grab and occupy government land and a prayer was made to the police to stop the government land grabbing.

By a second complaint, the same officials have made a complaint on 22nd January, 2002 to the effect that the petitioner has demolished the boards of the public park and garden under the Vikas Yojana, Mehrauli and thrown it away and starting plouging the same with a tractor. The complainant had informed the SHO of the Police Station Sangam Vihar that there were three boards of the garden departments which had disappeared. A prayer was made to save the government land from unauthorised occupation.

Having regard to the scheme of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the authorities are required to consider the cultivatory possession of land. The above reports only evidence the respondent''s contentions that the petitioner was attempting to occupy the land.

In any case, this entire issue so far as the merit of the petitioner''s case is concerned, is pending consideration before the Financial Commissioner who will decide on detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case.

The claim of the petitioner is pending consideration and the appropriate statutory remedy in this behalf has been invoked by the petitioner himself. In the orders relied upon by the petitioner, there is no adjudication on the merits of the claim and each time, the court left it to consideration and adjudication by the concerned authorities.

The petitioner has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in (2004) 13 SCC 746 D.P. Gupta v. Parsuram Tiwari and Anr. wherein it was held thus:

More important the Vice-Chancellor was admittedly aware of the judgment of the High Court. The order of the High Court was very categoric. Dr. B. Prasad''s services, for the purposes of promotion and seniority, only started on 12-8-1968. The High Court had categorically noted that after taking extraordinary leave in the guise of going for special training, Dr. B. Prasad had taken up a job as a Land Valuation Officer. The High Court had correctly held that having taken up a job in some other service, there was no question of Dr. B. Prasad''s retaining a lien on his service in the University only started when he rejoined on 12-8-1968. The judgment of the High Court made it very clear that the decision to take the earlier period of service into reckoning was not correct and could not be done. Thus, clearly the break in service could not have been condoned. In view of these categoric findings and decision of the High Court, one fails to understand how any reasonable person could still condone the break in service and pass an order continuing Dr. B. Prasad as Head of the Department. The only explanation is that the attempt was to overreach the judgment of the High Court and to favour Dr. B. Prasad in spite of the judgment. This being so, in our view, the High Court has correctly held the Vice-Chancellor guilty of contempt. We, thus, see no reason to interfere. Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1997 will accordingly stand dismissed with costs.

Reliance is also placed on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, In this case, the court was concerned with the orders passed for closure of unlicenced sawmills, veneer and plywood Industries and permission to these units granted by the State Government deliberately, consciously and being fully aware of the orders of the Supreme Court with the sole motive of favouring those units to avoid the enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court. Thus, the six units were permitted to operate in direct contravention of the orders of the court. It was in this background that the court observed thus:

Disobedience of this Court''s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule fo law and the civilised life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that courts'' orders are to be followed and complied with.

Before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to point out any act of the respondent which would even indicate mensrea to override any orders of the court. As noticed above, the court had itself directed consideration and decision by the respondents. The decision taken has been assailed by the petitioners in appropriate proceedings in compliance of statutory provisions.

In this view of the matter, it certainly cannot be held in the instant case that any action on the part of the respondents was in willful contempt of any orders passed by this Court.

For all the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. Inasmuch as the respondents are all authorities working with the Government of NCT of Delhi, it is directed that these costs shall be deposited with the Government of NCT of Delhi within two weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be placed before this Court.

Contempt notice issued to the respondents shall stand discharged.