Randhir Singh vs Gaon Sabha Maidangarhi

V.K. Jain, J.—The appellant before us is in possession of agricultural land measuring two bighas comprised in khasra No. 103 in Revenue Estate of village Maidan Garhi, Delhi An inspection was carried out by the Village Patwari on 4th February, 2000 and it was found that there existed house, plants of fruits and vegetables and tin shed for fodder cattle on the aforesaid land along with a tubewell. The proceedings under Sec. 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act having been initiated against the appellant, he appeared before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant and filed a reply. After going through the record and perusing the aforesaid report of the Village Patwari, the proceedings against the appellant were dropped. Another inspection was carried out by the Village Patwari on 23rd March, 2001, and a boundary wall with rooms was found constructed on the aforesaid land; it was reported by the Village Patwari that the agricultural land had been made non-cultivable on account of the aforesaid construction. On the aforesaid report, fresh proceedings u/s 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were initiated against the appellant, which culminated in an additional order u/s 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act being passed against the appellant. Appeal to the Collector (South) filed by the respondent was dismissed after noticing that in the khasra girdawari of the year 2000-2001, there was no construction on the aforesaid land on 5th October, 2000 and 24th February, 2001, whereas the report dated 23rd March, 2001 showed existence of rooms which proved that the construction had come up only after 24th February, 2001. He further noted that there was a subsequent report submitted to Tehsildar on 18.04.2002 stating therein that he had visited the land in question along with the Patwari and found that the land owner had made non-agricultural use of the agricultural land by constructing rooms and no crops/vegetables were being cultivated on the said land. It was held that the appellant had misused the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and had thereby contravened Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The appellant filed a revision petition against the order passed by the Collector (South). The revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2nd December, 2004 holding that the construction shown in the report dated 23.03.2001 had come up after 24.02.2001. The writ petition filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, he is before us by way of this appeal. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition was of the view that the earlier order passed by the Revenue Assistant was in blatant ignorance of the report of Patwari dated 04.02.2000.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that since the Patwari vide his report dated 4th February, 2000 had reported the construction of house and tin shed and despite such a report the proceedings were dropped by the Revenue Assistant vide order dated 4th May, 2000, it was not open to the respondent to initiate another proceedings u/s 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Assistant as well as the orders passed by the Collector (South), Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.

Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, provides that a Bhumidar or an Asami shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder, as the case may be, for using land for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and also pay damages equivalent to the cost of works which may be required to render the land capable of use for the said purposes.

It would, thus, be seen that if an agriculture land is used either wholly or partly for any purpose which is not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, the Bhumidar or Asami as the case may be, is liable to be ejected from such land, on the suit of the Gaon Sabha and he is also liable to pay damages equivalent to the cost of the work which would be necessary in order to restore the land so as to make it suitable for agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry purposes.

A comparison of the report dated 4th February, 2000 with the subsequent report dated 23.03.2001 would show that at the time of inspection on 4th February, 2000, construction had been raised only on the part of the agriculture land occupied by the appellant since the plants of fruits and vegetables were found on the unconstructed portion of the land. On the other hand, no plants of fruits or vegetables were found on any portion of the land in question when inspection was carried out on 23rd March, 2001. It would, thus, be seen that after 4th February, 2000, the appellant had carried out further construction on the land in question by raising construction even on that portion of the land where plants of fruits and vegetables were found on 4th February, 2000. No boundary wall was found at the time of inspection on the land in question on 4th February, 2000 whereas boundary was found existing at the time of inspection on 23.03.2001. This shows that the boundary wall also was constructed after inspection was carried out on 4th February, 2000. Since the appellant carried out additional constructions after 4th February, 2000 by raising boundary wall and also making construction on that portion of the land where plants of fruits and vegetables were found on 4th February, 2000, Gaon Sabha had a fresh cause of action to file a suit for ejectment of the appellant on account of such additional construction. Since the use of an agriculture land for residential purposes by constructing a house and a boundary wall cannot be said to be a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, we find no fault with the order passed by the Revenue Assistant and the orders whereby the revision petition and the writ petition filed by the appellant were dismissed. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.