Delhi High Court
Smt. Usha Gupta vs Sh. Subash Chand Tyagi on 28 November, 2011
Author: A.K. Pathak
Bench: A.K. Pathak
$~7
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2191/2007 and IA No. 7454/2009 (u/O 7 R 11 r/w
Sec. 151 CPC)
Decided on: 28th November, 2011
SMT. USHA GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. M.F. Khan and Mr.
G.S. Chauhan, Adv. for Mr.
A.K. Bajpai, Adv.
versus
SH. SUBASH CHAND TYAGI ..... Defendant
Through : Mr. I.P. Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK,J. (ORAL)
1. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC defendant has prayed that the plaint be rejected being barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ("DLR Act", for short).
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession against the defendant in respect of the land admeasuring 4120 sq. yds. forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 1 of 10 Shankarpura, Kaushik Enclave, Village Burari, Nathu Pura Road, Delhi, more particularly, shown in green colour in the site plan attached with the plaint.
3. Case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that he was the owner of land admeasuring 5280 sq. yds. (approximately) forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at Hoover Farm, Shankar Pura, Kaushik Enclave, Village Burari, Delhi. Plaintiff had sold a piece of land admeasuring 1160 sq yds. forming part of khasra nos. 35/12 min and 35/9/1 to the defendant on 10th August, 2005 and on the same day handed over the possession of the said land to the defendant. On 13th May, 2006 plaintiff came to know that defendant had sold 4120 sq. yds. abadi land shown in green colour forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at Shankar Pura (adjoining to the land admeasuring 1160 sq. yds., which he had sold to defendant) and had transferred the same to several persons, who had constructed rooms and boundaries over the said land of the plaintiff. A complaint was lodged with DCP (North) on 4th June, 2006, but no action was taken. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff is CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 2 of 10 that the defendant has illegally sold the land admeasuring 4120 sq. yds. forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min to some unknown persons and such persons were trespassers/ unauthorized occupants on the land of plaintiff. In these facts, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession.
4. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made in the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff. In Sri Kishan Vs. Shri Ram Kishan and Ors.159 (2009) DLT 470, a Single Judge of this Court observed thus, "Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then the plaint can be rejected. The legal position is that to decide whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 3 of 10 defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal, categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is barred.................."
5. From the plaint and documents it is borne out that the land involved in this case is an agricultural land situated at village Shankarpura, Burari, Delhi. This is so evident from the fact that khasra numbers, as per revenue record, have been mentioned in the plaint and not the municipal numbers. In the reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaintiff has claimed that the land has already been declared "abadi land", thus, DLR Act is not applicable. Plaintiff has placed reliance on the notification No. 183 dated 18th November, 1983 published in the Delhi Gazette issued by the Government of India (Delhi Administration) in support of his contention. However, a perusal of notification makes it clear that the same has been issued under the provisions of the DLR Act and the rules made therein. Vide the said notification, CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 4 of 10 Administrator has declared the area specified in column I of the table as a village "abadi", which contains khasra nos. 35/27 and 36/26, „Shankarpura‟, falling within the local area of Village Burari declared as village "abadi". This notification has not been issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 thereby notifying the area as urbanized area. First of all, this notification will not shed the character of the land from agricultural to "abadi land", which forms part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at Shankar Pura as the notification is in respect of land bearing khasra nos. 35/27 and 36/26. Secondly, the land forming part of khasra nos. 35/27 and 36/26 has not been declared as urbanized area, inasmuch as, it has only been notified that the khasra numbers mentioned in the notification will be recorded as separate revenue village (Abadi) in the revenue records maintained under the provisions of the DLR Act. Thus, in my view, DLR Act would be applicable to the land in question.
6. Section 84(1)(a) of the DLR Act provides that a person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law, forming part of holding of a CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 5 of 10 Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhar or Asami, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidhar, Asami or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be and shall also be liable to pay damages. Remedy is provided under this Section for ejectment of a trespasser or unauthorized occupant.
7. Section 185 of the DLR Act provides that no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. Article 19 of Schedule I under Section 84 of the DLR Act provides that a suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and damages, by a Bhumidhar declared under Chapter III of the DLR Act or by an Asami falling under Section 6 of the Act, where such unlawful occupant was in possession of the land before the issue of the prescribed declaration form, shall be filed within three years from the date of issue of the prescribed declaration form to the tenure holder or the sub tenure holder concerned before the „Revenue Assistant‟. Appeal against the order of Revenue Assistant lies before the Deputy Commissioner. CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 6 of 10 Thus, it is clear that no suit for ejectment and/or possession in respect of land to which DLR Act is applicable, is maintainable before the Civil Court, as the remedy lies before the „Revenue Assistant‟ in this regard. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted under Section 185 of the DLR Act.
8. In Hatti vs. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2320, Supreme Court has held that with regard to the suits for possession, under Section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession and a suit for possession in respect of agricultural land, after the commencement of the Act, can only be instituted either by a Bhumidar or by an Asami or the Gram Sabha and not by any person claiming to be a proprietor because the Act does not envisage a proprietor as such continuing to have rights after the commencement of the Act. The First Schedule and Section 84 of DLR Act provide full remedy for suit for possession to a person who holds right in the agricultural land under the Act. It has been further observed that the Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that anyone wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidhar CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 7 of 10 or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule and this, he is allowed to do without any period of limitation because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can, thus, be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be sought under Section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were, thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
9. A Single Judge of this Court in Sri Kishan (supra) has held that a suit for declaration and partition of agricultural land shall be barred under Section 185 of the DLR Act. In the context of Section 185 of the DLR Act, Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha and Anr. Vs. Nathi and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 555 has held as under:-
"The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 8 of 10 vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal. It is indeed surprising that in spite of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court which was rendered in 1973 which had settled the legal position and was a binding precedent and the decision of this Court in Hatti v. Sundar Singh (supra) which was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal (RSA No. 73 of 1972), he chose to bye-pass the same by some queer logic and went on to hold that the civil suit was maintainable. Once we come to the legal position that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the inevitable consequence is that the decree passed in the aforesaid suit including that of the High Court is wholly without jurisdiction........"
10. Judgment in Rajender Singh vs. Vijay Pal @ Jai Pal and Others, 2008 (148) DLT 596, reliance whereupon has been placed by the plaintiff‟s counsel is in the context of different facts and is of no help to the plaintiff. Reliefs claimed in the said suit were with regard to declaration and permanent injunction. The scope of Section 84 DLR Act read with item 19(i) of Schedule I which provides0 a remedy of possession under the said Act, was not in issue nor it has been held that suit for declaration and/or possession is maintainable in a civil court in respect of an agricultural land governed under the DLR Act.
11. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the view that the present CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 9 of 10 suit is not maintainable. Plaint is, thus, rejected. Application is disposed of in the above terms.
12. All the pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2011 rb CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 10 of 10