Delhi High Court
Shri Jeet Ram (Since Deceased) Thru Lrs vs Shri Ran Singh & Ors. on 14 November, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
Bench: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 14, 2014
(i) + RSA 331/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS
SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
(ii) + RSA 332/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI RAM PHAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
(iii) + RSA 333/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SMT. CHANDER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 1
(iv) + RSA 334/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI RAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
(v) + RSA 335/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI RAM KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
(vi) + RSA 336/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI GANGA RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 2
(vii) + RSA 337/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI RAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
(viii) + RSA 338/2014
SHRI JEET RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LRS SHRI
BRAHAM SWAROOP & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
versus
SHRI KANWAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH: HIS LRS
SMT. SHANNO @ SHANTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL C.M.No.18578/2014 in RSA No.331/2014 C.M.No.18581/2014 in RSA No.332/2014 C.M.No.18584/2014 in RSA No.333/2014 C.M.No.18587/2014 in RSA No.334/2014 C.M.No.18590/2014 in RSA No.335/2014 C.M.No.18593/2014 in RSA No.336/2014 C.M.No.18596/2014 in RSA No.337/2014 C.M.No.18599/2014 in RSA No.338/2014 RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 3 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No.18577/2014 in RSA No.331/2014 C.M.No.18580/2014 in RSA No.332/2014 C.M.No.18583/2014 in RSA No.333/2014 C.M.No.18586/2014 in RSA No.334/2014 C.M.No.18589/2014 in RSA No.335/2014 C.M.No.18592/2014 in RSA No.336/2014 C.M.No.18595/2014 in RSA No.337/2014 C.M.No.18598/2014 in RSA No.338/2014 For reasons stated in the applications, delay of 32 days in re-filing the accompanying appeals is condoned.
Applications are disposed of.
RSA No.331/2014 & C.M.No.18576/2014 RSA No.332/2014 & C.M.No.18579/2014 RSA No.333/2014 & C.M.No.18582/2014 RSA No.334/2014 & C.M.No.18585/2014 RSA No.335/2014 & C.M.No.18588/2014 RSA No.336/2014 & C.M.No.18591/2014 RSA No.337/2014 & C.M.No.18594/2014 RSA No.338/2014 & C.M.No.18597/2014 In the above captioned eight appeals, not only the appellants are common but even the impugned order is of 28th April, 2014 and the issues involved in these appeals is also identical and so, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Appellants are the plaintiff, whose suit for possession was decreed by trial court while holding that the suit property is a private property of the appellants and it is covered by Section 8 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The aforesaid finding of trial court has been reversed by the RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 4 First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment of 28th April, 2014 by holding that appellants have failed to prove that they were in possession of the subject land prior to coming into force of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and so, appellants do not have the protection of Section 8 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are already noted in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and need no reiteration. It would suffice to note that appellants claim to be owner in possession of Khasra No.189 in Village Kakrola, Delhi since the year 1973. Under the Twenty Point Programme, the subject land was allotted to the poor and land- less in the year 1976 and appellants were put in possession of the subject land in August, 1986, as per report of the concerned SDM.
Section 8 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 reads as under:-
"8. Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings. - (1) All private wells in or outside holdings, all tanks, groves and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or help buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by a proprietor tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor, tenant or person, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Chief Commissioner.
(2) Trees planted by a person other than a proprietor of land other than land comprised in his holding shall continue to belong to or be held by such person on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Chief Commissioner].
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the benefit of Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 has been RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 5 illegally denied to appellants, who were in possession of the subject land prior to coming into force of the aforesaid enactment.
Attention of this court was drawn to trial court's judgment to point out that suit of Gaon Sabha to seek possession of the subject land was dismissed on the ground of being hopelessly barred by time and this by itself establishes that appellants were in possession of the subject land. Thus, it is contended that the findings returned in the impugned judgment is perverse on the face of it and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the trial court judgment ought to be restored.
After hearing learned counsel for appellants and upon perusal of impugned judgment, trial court judgment and material on record, I find that proprietor of a land is entitled to protection of Section 8 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and appellants had lost this status because the concerned Gaon Sabha had instituted ejectment proceedings against predecessors of appellants in the year 1973 while treating them to be tresspassers. Merely because suit of Gaon Sabha was dismissed as time barred would not change the status of predecessor of appellants of a tress- passer.
During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in the year 1977 Gaon Sabha had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the appellants or their predecessors from taking possession of the subject land. Irrespective of the fate of the said suit, it is evident that appellants were not in possession and so, such suit was filed. In any case, appellants have failed to prove that they were in possession of the subject land at the time when The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into being. What has escaped the notice of trial court is that the Gaon Sabha's RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 6 suit for ejectment was in respect of a particular piece of land and not the entire suit land and so, the findings returned by First Appellate Court against the appellant of their failing to establish that they were in possession of the suit land prior to the coming into force The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is neither erroneous nor perverse.
In view of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals and hence, these appeals and applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 14, 2014
r
RSA Nos.331 to 338 of 2014 Page 7