Delhi District Court
Sh. Satpal Rana vs . Sh. Surender Kumar on 12 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE17
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 194/97
Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar
ORDER
1. This order shall decide the preliminary issue i.e. Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred by Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following relief " It is, therefore, prayed that the land measuring 206 Bighas situated in Khasra No. 25/1/1 & 25/18/2 situated in village Qutub Garh, Delhi be declared as joint Khewat of LR's of Late Sh. Jot Ram by passing a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs and th the plaintiff be declared as owner of 1/4 share of the abovesaid land. A decree of permanent injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant to restrain him sellor transfer the above said land to any other person till the disposal of the suit."
2. The defendant in the written statement in the preliminary objections itself averred that the suit was not maintainable in the present form because of the land in dispute is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act which abolished the rights of ownership. Written submissions were also filed by the Suit No. 194/97 Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar 1/5 defendant wherein it is stressed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to declare a person as Bhumidhar U/s 185 DLR Act.
3. Per contra, Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant had not stated anywhere as to under which particular provision of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, including the schedule thereto did the case of the plaintiff fall. He argued that it was only in those cases which found mention in Schedule I of the said Act that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1991 (2) RRR 412 Siri Ram Vs. Jai Parkash in this regard, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction that the plaintiff was sole heir and successor of the property is not a matter enumerated in Schedule I of the DLR Act and jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred U/s 185 of the said Act and reference was also made to the case of Mam Raj Vs. Ram Chander & Ors 10 (1974) DLT 227 in this regard wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held similarly that in suits where permanent injunction was claimed on the basis of succession to bhumidhari rights on the basis of a will, such a suit would not be barred U/s 185 DLR Act. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the defendant referred to the case of Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh AIR 1971 SC 2 320 which is the landmark judgment on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred when a declaration Suit No. 194/97 Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar 2/5 as to bhumidhari rights is sought.
4. Heard and perused.
5. The judgments of Siri Ram (Supra) and Mam Raj (Supra) relied on by the plaintiff are indeed authorities for what they hold however the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts since the plaintiff herein has neither claimed a declaration that he is the sole heir and successor of the property nor is he claiming title on the basis of any will, the plaintiff quite unambiguously seeks declaration that the suit property is the joint Khewat of LRs of Late Sh. Jor Ram and a declaration that plaintiff be declared 'owner' of th 1/4 share of the suit land alongwith the consequential relief of injunction. It is rightly argued by the counsel for defendant that after the passing of the DLR Act, the concept of ownership has been abolished, a person can either be a Bhumdhar or Asami of agricultural land and it is not disputed that the suit land is agricultural land.
6. In Mange Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (RSA No. 8/1996 decided by the Honble Delhi High Court on 22.09.2010) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with a case wherein the plaintiffs had sought a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit property along with the relief of permanent injunction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the celebrated judgment of Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh 1970 (2) SCC 841 and observed in Suit No. 194/97 Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar 3/5 paras 18 and 19 as follows "18. The legal position which emerges is that a person can either be a bhumidhar or an asami of the agricultural land in the village. He can also be owner of the property of the type which has been detailed in Section 8 of the Act, like private wells, tanks, groves and abadis, trees and buildings. Except for these all other kinds of land and property would vest in the Gaon Sabha."
19. The present suit as encompassed shows that the plaintiff is seeking a declaration about his ownership. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Hatti case (supra) the jurisdiction of the civil court is limited only to deciding issues of title which are referred to it by the Revenue Court clearly implying that if a question of title arises the same will be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court, the party cannot directly approach the Civil Court for declaration of title."
7. Ld. counsel for plaintiff had also argued that the defendant had committed a contempt of the interim order in the present case, for which contempt proceedings were pending and the defendant was to purge himself therein. Apparently, the contempt application was transferred to another court and counsel for defendant filed a photocopy of an order in M78/11 titled 'Satpal Rana Vs. Surender Kumar U/o 39 R 2A & 4 r/w Section 151 CPC r/w Suit No. 194/97 Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar 4/5 Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 wherein vide order dated 05.09.2012, the above captioned application was dismissed in default. Be that as it may the pendency, if any, of contempt proceedings is a separate issue and the contempt application, if any pending, would be decided on its own merits but the pendency of contempt proceedings cannot be a reason to keep alive a proceeding when the inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertains the same is barred. By mere astuteness of drafting the plaintiff cannot seek to camouflage the relief sought which is pertaining to title and in effect is a declaration of bhumidhari rights. In view of Section 185 DLR Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the present suit is barred. The preliminary issue stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Since the suit is barred by law i.e. Section 185 DLR Act, which is discernible from the averments in the plaint itself, therefore the plaint is hereby rejected U/o 7 R 11(d) CPC.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 12.08.2013 Civil Judge - 17 (Central)
12.08.2013
Suit No. 194/97 Sh. Satpal Rana Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar 5/5