Mahender vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

,,,,,,,,

Jayant Nath, J",,,,,,,,

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and order dated,,,,,,,,

25.6.2014 passed by the SDM/Revenue Assistant thereby allowing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 86A of the Delhi,,,,,,,,

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as DLR Act) and directing dispossession of the petitioner from the said land situated at village",,,,,,,,

Jhuljhuli, New Delhi.",,,,,,,,

I may note that this Court has already dealt with a connected writ petition being Mahender v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., WP(C) 12371/2019",,,,,,,,

pronounced on 31.01.2020. The facts of the present case are virtually identical as that of WP(C)12371/2019. The same facts are relevant here and,,,,,,,,

are repeated herein below from the Judgment dated 31.1.2020:-,,,,,,,,

The facts show a long history of events commencing from 1984. The petitioner states that he was allotted land being 38/4, 4 bighas, 16 biswas in",,,,,,,,

Gaon Jhuljhulli by the Gaon Sabha of the said village. It is pleaded that under the 20-point programme of the Central Government, the village",,,,,,,,

Panchayats prepared lists of villagers, who fulfilled the criteria. Vide Resolution dated 12.07.1984 held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Director",,,,,,,,

Panchayat, the enlisted villagers were allotted one acre land each. It is pleaded that the petitioner thereafter became Assami of the respondents. The",,,,,,,,

allotments are also said to have been approved by Resolutions dated 12.09.1984 and 27.09.1984 of the Gaon Sabha. Possession of the land was,,,,,,,,

handed over vide Resolution dated 30.10.1984. It is pleaded that the petitioner has been in possession of the said land and continues to cultivate the,,,,,,,,

same till date. The land was banjar and the petitioner made the land cultivable by hard work, day and night. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the",,,,,,,,

revenue authorities for recording possession and cultivation in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner relying upon Section 74 (4) of the Delhi,,,,,,,,

Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is stated that the Patwari carried out an inspection of the land on 08.03.1991 and confirmed the possession of the",,,,,,,,

petitioner; however, the possession of the petitioner was not recorded in the khasra girdawari.",,,,,,,,

Aggrieved by the above act of the respondents, the petitioner along with 25 similarly placed villagers filed a writ petition before this court being",,,,,,,,

W.P. (C) No.245/1992. This court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the land. The Local Commissioner confirmed the possession of the,,,,,,,,

petitioner and that the same was being used for agricultural purposes.,,,,,,,,

The respondents had filed a counter-affidavit in the said writ petition (W.P. (C) 245/1992). In the said counter-affidavit, the respondents took the",,,,,,,,

plea that the Director Panchayat at no point of time gave his sanction as required under Rule 178 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 (hereinafter",,,,,,,,

referred to as the 1959 Rules). Hence, the possession of the petitioner was illegal. The writ petition was disposed of on 14.08.2001 and this court",,,,,,,,

directed the respondents to record the possession of the person who is cultivating the fields at the spot in accordance with the provisions of the Act,,,,,,,,

and the rules framed there under.,,,,,,,,

It is the grievance of the petitioner that as steps were not taken to comply with the said order dated 14.08.2001, a contempt petition was filed. On",,,,,,,,

05.12.2002, in the said petition, the court recorded the statement of the respondents that the revenue authorities shall take action to record the",,,,,,,,

possession of the petitioner in the revenue records in accordance with the said judgment. It is pleaded that instead of complying with the said order,,,,,,,,

dated 14.08.2001, the Halka Patwari gave a report for initiation of eviction proceedings under Section 86A of the DLR Act against the petitioner. The",,,,,,,,

respondents also filed an affidavit in the contempt petition that necessary action for recording of unauthorized possession of the petitioner and others,,,,,,,,

have taken place by filing Form P-5A by the Halka Patwari. It is also stated that action under Section 86A of the DLR Act has also been initiated.,,,,,,,,

The contempt petition was disposed of on 25.03.2003.,,,,,,,,

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner struck off the name of the petitioner from,,,,,,,,

the revenue record without granting an opportunity of being heard. Further, it was claimed that the petitioner had been in possession of the said land",,,,,,,,

since five years as Assami and had also reclaimed the land. Hence the petitioner was entitled to be admitted as bhumidar under Section 74(4) of the,,,,,,,,

DLR Act. It is also pleaded that the proceeding initiated by the respondents under Section 86A of the DLR Act are barred by time and hence, are not",,,,,,,,

maintainable. The petitioner also initiated proceedings under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act.,,,,,,,,

The petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P. (C) No.6978/2009 before this Court. While disposing of the said writ petition, a direction was",,,,,,,,

passed vide order dated 01.12.2010 that the revenue court before whom proceedings are pending under Section 74 (4) and Section 86A of the DLR,,,,,,,,

Act should dispose of the said proceedings within nine months. It was further directed that both the proceedings were to be taken up simultaneously.,,,,,,,,

Pursuant to the above directions, on 25.06.2014, the SDM dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 74 (4) of the DLR Act. An",,,,,,,,

ejectment order was passed against the petitioner and 25 others under Section 86A of the DLR Act.,,,,,,,,

Against the aforesaid order dated 25.06.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 187 of the DLR Act before the Deputy Commissioner.",,,,,,,,

Similar appeals were also filed by the other aggrieved villagers. As no interim orders were passed, it is stated that the Tehsildar malafidely sought to",,,,,,,,

handover the possession of the land to the BDO on 12.11.2014. It is claimed that the report of the Tehsildar is false as possession of the said land is,,,,,,,,

still with the petitioner and the crops are standing on the said land.,,,,,,,,

Pursuant to another writ petition filed by the petitioner in this court being W.P. (C) No.8347/2014 and directions issued thereof, the Deputy",,,,,,,,

Commissioner disposed of the appeals filed by the petitioner and 25 other villagers by a common order dated 12.10.2015. By the said order, the",,,,,,,,

Deputy Commissioner upheld the order passed by the SDM and dismissed the claims of the petitioner under Section 74 (4) of the DLR Act for,,,,,,,,

bhumidhari rights and allowed ejectment of the petitioner under Section 86A of the DLR Act.,,,,,,,,

Against above order under Section 86A of the Act, as no further appeals lie in the proceedings under the DLR Act, the petitioner filed a writ",,,,,,,,

petition being W.P. (C) No.10594/2011 (i.e. the present writ petition) along with 25 other villagers. Regarding dismissal of proceedings under Section,,,,,,,,

74 (4) of the DLR Act, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal of",,,,,,,,

the petitioner on 04.10.2019 i.e. the impugned order. (in that writ petition)""",,,,,,,,

As is apparent from the above, the present writ petition pertains to the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner",,,,,,,,

whereby the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the eviction of the petitioner from the land in question allotted,,,,,,,,

under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. I may note that order dated 12.1.0.2015 deals with two separate proceedings- namely an",,,,,,,,

order passed against the petitioner dismissing the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act and the order passed,,,,,,,,

against the petitioner under Section 86A of the Act ordering eviction of the petitioner. The order dated 12.10.2015 was challenged to the extent that it,,,,,,,,

dealt the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act and has already been dealt with by the Financial Commissioner,,,,,,,,

vide order dated 4.10.2019. The same was also dealt with by this Court in WP(C)12371/2019 in the order dated 31.1.2020. Both the proceedings i.e.,,,,,,,,

Sl.No.,"Section of

the Act","Description

of suit

application

and other

proceedings","P eriod of

Limitation","Time from

which

period

beings","Proper

Court fees","C o u r t of

original

jurisdiction",Court of,

,,,,,,,1st Appeal,2nd Appeal

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

20A.,86A,"Proceedings

for

ejectment of

persons

occupying

land without

title.","S a m e as

that

provided for

a suit under

section 84,

85 or 86, as

the case

may be.","S a m e as

that

provided for

a suit under

84, 85 or 86,

as the case

may be.",Nil.,"Revenue

Assistant.","Deputy

Commissioner.",..]

Sl.No.,"Section of

the Act","Description

of suit

application

and other

proceedings","P eriod of

Limitation","T i m e from

which period

beings","Proper

Court fees","C o u r t of

original

jurisdiction",Court of,

,,,,,,,1st Appeal,2nd Appeal

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

19,84,"S u i t for

ejectment of

a person

occupying

land without

title and

damages.",,,,,,

,,"( i ) by

Bhumidhar

declared

under

Chapter II

of the Act

or by an

Asami

falling under

section 6 of

the Act

where such

unlawful

occupant

was in

possession

o f the land

before the

issue of the

prescribed

declaration

form;

(ii) by a

Gaon Sabha

where the

unlawful

occupant

was in

possession

of the land

before the

constitution

of Gaon

Panchayat.

(iii) By a

Bhumidhar,

Asami or

Gaon Sabha

in any other

case.","Three

years.

I

-do-.

Three

years.","From the date

of issue of

the

prescribed

declaration

form to the

tenure-holder

o r the

subtenure-

holder

concerned.

From the date

of constitution

of Gaon

Panchayat

under section

151.

From the 1st

of July

following the

date of

occupation.","do-

do-

A s in the

Court Fees

Act, 1870.","do-

do-

Revenue

Assistant.","do-

do-

Deputy

Commissioner.","..

..

.]

19A.,85,"S u i t for

ejectment of

a person

referred to

in the first

proviso.",-do-.,"From the date

of passing of

the Delhi

Land

Reforms

(Amendment)

Act, 1965.",-do-.,-do-.,-do-.,..]

20.,86,"S u i t for

ejectment of

a

Bhumidhar

to whom

clause (i) of

section 85

applies.",One year.,"From the date

of acquirights",-do-,-do-,-do-,..

20A.,86A,"Proceedings

for

ejectment of

persons

occupying

land without

title.","S a m e as

that

provided for

a suit under

section 84,

85 or 86, as

the case

may be.","Same as that

provided for a

suit under 84,

85 or 86, as

the case may

be.",Nil.,"Revenue

Assistant.","Deputy

Commissioner.",..]

Commissioner has already been confirmed by the order of the Financial Commissioner and then by this Court in the judgment dated 31.1.2020.,,,,,,,,

The proceedings of the respondents under section 86A of the DLR Act are remanded back for afresh consideration by the SDM/Revenue,,,,,,,,

Assistant as per law. Parties will appear before the SDM on 16.03.2020. The SDM is requested to expeditiously dispose of the matter within one year,,,,,,,,

from the date of the receipt of this order.,,,,,,,,

The petition stands disposed of.,,,,,,,,