Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr Jai Pal Singh Rana vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 18 December, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~191
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16332/2023
DR JAI PAL SINGH RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. S. Dalal with Mr. Devesh
Pratap Singh, Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms.
Rachana Dalal, Mr. Tanishq Tyagi,
Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC with Ms.
Sheenu Priya, Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Shukla, Mr. Sudhir and Mr. Sumit
Choudhary, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 18.12.2023 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns order dated 29.08.2023, whereby the learned Financial Commissioner has disposed-of proceedings under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 ('EPH Act'), that were pending before him vide Case No. 153/2010, premised on the verdict of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Another vs. Narain Singh and Others1, recording that since Village : Khera Kalan, in which the subject land is situate, stands urbanised vide notification dated 20.11.2019 issued under section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, he ceases to have jurisdiction over the subject land.
12023 SCC OnLine SC 261 W.P.(C) 16332/2023 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2023 at 22:30:47
2. Mr. N. S. Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the verdict of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra) has no application to proceedings under section 42 of the EPH Act; since that judgment pertains only to the proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 ('DLR Act') since that was the only issue argued before the Supreme Court in that matter.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondents on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file counter-affidavit.
5. Let counter-affidavit be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
6. Mr. Kumar points-out that a Division Bench of this court in Umed Singh vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.2, had taken the view that despite urbanisation, the provisions of the EPH Act would continue to apply. Counsel submits that this view has however been rejected by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra)3 where the Supreme Court has observed that "....... on principle, we are not in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court in Umed Singh (supra) ......".
7. That apart, Mr. Kumar also points-out that once a village stands urbanised, the land situate therein ceases to be "land" within the meaning of section 2(d) of the EPH Act, which provision defines land 2 1997 SCC OnLine Del 842 3 cf. para 39 of judgment W.P.(C) 16332/2023 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2023 at 22:30:47 to mean only that which is occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture.
8. Re-notify on 15th April 2024.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J DECEMBER 18, 2023 ds W.P.(C) 16332/2023 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2023 at 22:30:48