Delhi High Court
Sh. Sis Ram And Ors. vs Sh. Lallu Singh And Ors. on 9 May, 2006
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of preliminary issue framed on 4th August, 2005 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as contended by the defendants OPD
2. The brief facts to adjudicate this issue are that the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of late Shri Mam Raj son of Shri Chet Ram are in joint possession of abadi land forming part of Khasra No. 429 measuring 18 biswas (900 sq.yards) situated in Village Mauzpur, Delhi as recorded co-sharer/bhumidar to the extent of 1/3rd share.
3. Another 1/3rd share in the said land originally belonged to Shri Khem Chand son of Shri Ram Prashad as a co-sharer/bhumidar and after his death about 25 years ago, the rights in 1/3rd share devolved upon his two sons Revti and Ram Saroop. Shri Revti also died about 12 years back and his rights have devolved upon defendant Nos. 16 to 18 as his legal representatives and the rights of Shri Ram Saroop who also expired about 10 years back have devolved upon defendant No. 19 and 20.
4. The rights in the remaining 1/3rd share of the land vest with the defendants No. 1 to 15, who are the legal heirs of Shri Ram Chander, Shri Sohan Lal and Shri Reghubir, sons of late Shri Chet Ram and Smt. Chameli. According to plaintiff, the land is partially built-up and partially vacant. Since late Shri Mam Raj s/o Shri Chet Ram was recorded bhumidar to the extent of 1/3rd share, a petition for partition was filed by the plaintiff under Section 55 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, however, the relief of partition was declined because the area of the land was less than 8 standard acres.
5. The plaintiff contended that by a notification dated 28th May, 1966 published in the Delhi Gazette, Extraordinary Part IV on 3rd June, 1966. The notification was issued by the Corporation with the previous approval of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the locality where the land is situated ceased to be rural area and has been declared as an urban area. By notification No. SO.1236 dated 27th March, 1979 in exercise of powers under Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, all the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act has also been extended to all the localities urbanized vide the notification of 3rd June, 1966. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:
S. No. Name of Zone Name of the Revenue Estate Particulars of area proposed
to be urbanised
IV Shahdara Side 3 Mauzpur The entire remaining area of
the said revenue Estate which
has not so far been urbanised.
6. In the circumstances, it is contended by the plaintiff that the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1974 do not apply to partition of the land and the jurisdiction will not be of the Revenue Assistant under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1974.
7. The defendants No. 1 to 15 have contested the claim for partition of the suit land by the plaintiff and they have filed the written statement contending inter alia that the suit is not maintainable before the High Court as the suit should have been filed before the Revenue Assistant only who has got the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act read with schedule I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1974. It was asserted that under Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1974, the revenues courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to get the holding of the land in dispute partition as the suit property is duly governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act and consequently the High Court does not have jurisdiction over the property in dispute. Reliance was also placed on the admission made by the plaintiffs that they are co-bhumidars of the land in dispute and therefore it was contended that the jurisdiction for partitioning the property shall only be of revenue assistant and the land cannot be partitioned by a Civil Court. On the basis of the pleadings between the parties, the issues were framed on 4th August, 2005 and an issue whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was also settled which is as under:
'Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 185 of Land Reforms Act, 1954 as contended by defendants' OPD'. It was also ordered to be traded as preliminary issue.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff at length. No one was present on behalf of defendant.
9. The learned Counsel has contended that since the area where the property is situated has been urbanized, the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act will not be applicable and for partitioning of such properties which have been urbanised the jurisdiction will not be of revenue assistant under Section 55 of the said Act. A copy of notification dated 28th May, 1966 has been produced whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, with the previous approval of the Central Government, certain localities were held to be ceased to be rural areas which included the locality where the land in dispute situated.
10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also relied on 2001 VII AD (DELHI) 72, Madho Prasad v. Shri Ram Kishan and Ors. and , Trikha Ram v. Sahib Ram and Anr. to contend that since the said locality where the land is situated has been urbanized, the jurisdiction will not be of revenue assistant under Section 55 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and jurisdiction shall vest with the civil court.
11. Perusal of notification dated 28th May, 1966, it is apparent that the entire area of revenue estate, Mauzpur, Shahdara has been urbanized. Pursuant to said notification, another notification No. SO. 1236 dated 17th March, 1999 in the exercise of powers under Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was issued and even the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act has been extended to the localities urbanized by earlier notification.
12. The point for determination in the circumstances is whether the provision of Delhi Land Reforms Act would be applicable even though the land stands urbanized and the land falling within Section 3(13)((b) of the Act ceased to be 'village abadi'. The definition of land in Section 3(13) of Land Reforms Act, is as under:
'Land' except in Sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes'
(a) building appurtenant thereto,
(b) village Abadis,
(c) grovelands,
(d) land for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing Singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or Occasional cultivation, but does not include/land occupied by buildings in belts of areas adjacent to Delhi town and New Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by a notification in the official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto.
13. The definition of land as given above is an inclusive definition. It would be seen from the definition of 'land' that apart from the land occupied for various purposes connected with agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry, poultry etc. or buildings appurtenant being treated as land for purposes of Land Reforms Act, the inclusive definition of land describes the various other kinds of land viz. groveland, village Abadi etc.
14. Perusal of the Section 3(13)(b) and Section 3(13)(d), it is apparent that the land in dispute would be covered by Section 3(13)(b) and not under Section 3(13)(d) and once by virtue of notification under Section 507(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the land is delineated to be urban land and it should no longer be classified as 'village abadi' land within the definition of 'land' under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
15. Reliance for these can be placed on Trikah Ram (supra) where a Single Judge in similar circumstances had held that the land in village abadi in respect of which a notification was issued under Section 507(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act would no longer be classified as village abadi land on its declaration as an urban land. It was held:
12. ...A meaningful reading of Section 3(13) of the Act would show that in the instant case to begin the property in suit fell within 'village Abadi'. The question that we have to consider is once the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act are applicable on account of the same falling within Section 3(13)(b), whether the same would continue even if it is ceased to be 'village Abadi'. In my view this would be a case falling within 3(13)(b) and not under 3(13)(d), where the requirement for notification by the Chief Commissioner arises for exclusion of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It appears to me that once by virtue of notification issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the land is declared to be urban land it could no longer be classified as 'village Abadi land' within the definition of 'land' under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The provisions of Land Reforms Act would not be applicable.
16. The inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances of the case will be that on urbanization of land in dispute for which the partition has been sought by the plaintiff, it will not be governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Filing of petition earlier for the division of the property before the Revenue Assistant which was declined as the portion of the land was becoming less than eight standard acres, will not make the property of the parties `Village Abadi' and will not be governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954. On urbanization of the property, it will no longer be `village abadi' and consequently it can not be inferred that for partition of the property, the petition has to be filed before the Revenue Assistant under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954.
17. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the issue is decided against the defendants.
18. Since no one is present on behalf of defendants, they are proceeded ex parte.
19. Plaintiff to file his evidence on affidavit within four weeks. List on July 14, 2006 before the Joint Registrar for marking the documents according to the deposition of the plaintiff and his witnesses and thereafter list on August 22, 2006 before the Court for hearing.