Delhi High Court - Orders
Ranjan Rehani vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 27 May, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8554/2022 & CM APPL. 25811/2022
RANJAN REHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Akshita Manocha and Ms. Serena
Sharma, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, ASC for
GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 27.05.2022 CM APPL. 25726/2022 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8554/2022 & CM APPL. 25811/2022
1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quashing the proceedings initiated in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing Khasra Nos. 12/21/2 (0 - 04), 13/25/4 (0 - 10), 19/1 (4 -
16), 19/10 (4 - 16) situated in Village Badusarai, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51 District South-West, New Delhi, vide notice in LR-
48 dated 27.12.2021, bearing case No. 49/80/2021 titled "Gaon Sabha Badusarai Vs. Ranjan Rehani", pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant, Kapashera, District South West, New Delhi.
(b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quashing/setting aside the restraint order dated 07.12.2021 issued/passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Revenue Assistant, Kapashera, District South West, New Delhi, in respect of the Petitioner's land, bearing F.SDM/KH/Misc. (R.O)/2021/70605;..."
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has been recorded in Khasra Girdawari as also in Khatauni in respect of the aforesaid land. The petitioner applied for and was granted building sanction plan by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter "MCD") vide sanction letter dated 12th May 1998 to construct a farm house on the aforesaid land. The petitioner constructed the farm house in compliance with the sanction granted by MCD and also built a boundary wall. On 26th August 2008, on the basis of the report of Halqua Patwari, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for construction of farm house and boundary wall on the land. However, the Revenue Assistant subsequently dropped the proceedings vide order dated 14 th September 2012 on the basis of various judgments of this Court, holding that the building connected with for the purposes of agriculture are permitted under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter "DLR Act") as well as on the basis of the report of Patwari dated 5th May 2021 which categorically stated that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51 land houses a kothi in 4 biswas and remaining land is cultivated.
3. The Secretary of GNCT of Delhi vide Circular dated 3rd July 2013 directed that once the sanction for a building has been granted by the competent authority, the provisions of DLR Act shall not apply. The SDM received the complaint dated 6th December 2021 in respect of the aforesaid land in which it is alleged that unauthorized construction has been undertaken by the owner of the subject land. The SDM issued the impugned notice on the vague pretext receiving information that aforesaid lands are being used for non-agricultural purposes. The impugned notice mentioned the report of Halqua Patwari as a part of Schedule I. The said impugned notice was issued without consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner/legal representative of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice that has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant on the alleged ground that the land is being used for non-agriculture purpose in contravention of Chapter III-D of the DLR Act is wholly erroneous submitting to the effect that the land in question falls in village Badusarai which is included in the list of villages in the Green Belt where "Low Density Residential Plots" are permitted. Details of the villages inclusive of the village Badusarai is shown in the Zone 'L' at serial no. 7 are placed on record in Annexure-II with the notification dated 18th June 2013. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the land in village Badusarai is no more an agricultural land and is not governed by the DLR Act. He has relied upon judgment of this Court in Smt. Sushma Kapoor vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Another; 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5170, submitting to the effect that once the fact of the land being covered under the notification Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51 of 18th June 2013 is ascertained and clarified and it thus falls in a "Low Density Residential Area" as admitted by the respondents herein, the proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act cannot continue. He has specifically relied upon paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:-
" 9. Once the fact of the land being covered under the notification of 18 June 2013 and covered under a Low Density Residential Area is admitted to the respondents, it is manifest that the proceedings initiated under the Act cannot be sustained. The Court also fails to find any merit in the contention of Ms. Takiar that the revenue authorities would still be empowered to enquire whether constructions were being raised without the requisite permissions as contemplated under the DMC or DDA Acts. Those enactments incorporate sufficient measures for enquiry and enforcement and independently confer powers in connection therewith upon statutory authorities other than revenue officials. "
5. It is inter alia submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment of this Court in Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Through: Its Department of Urban Development and Another; 2022 SCC OnLine Del 360, wherein a classification has been made of four broad heads in relation to the aspect of applicability of the DLR Act or otherwise which read to the effect:
"CASE 1 Where proceedings have not been initiated and notifications under the DMC/DDA Acts intervene.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51
CASE 2 Where although proceedings have been initiated or a conditional order made, notifications come to be issued before a final order directing ejectment and vesting is passed.
CASE 3 Where the notifications come to be issued after a final order of ejectment and vesting comes to be made.
CASE 4 Where a notification comes to be issued during the pendency of an appeal or revision against a final order at the behest of the landholder or Gaon Sabha. "
6. Having been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls in CASE No.1 which aspect was answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanvik (supra) to the effect:
"CASE 1
53. Insofar as CASE 1 is concerned, this need not detain the Court since it was fairly conceded by the respondents that where no proceedings have been drawn or initiated under Section 81 prior to the issuance of the notifications, no authority or jurisdiction would be retained to invoke the same. This position clearly flows from the decisions of the Court that have been noticed above and which have consistently taken the view that once the land stands comprised in notifications issued under the DMC or the DDA Acts, it would stand excluded from the application of the DLR. This since it has ceased to answer to the description of land itself as defined in Section 3(13) of the Act. The Court thus comes to the firm conclusion that once the area has come to be urbanized and stands comprised in notifications issued under the DMC or the DDA Acts, the respondents would stand denuded of all Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51 jurisdiction and authority to initiate proceedings under Section 81 of the Act thereafter. "
7. The notification in question governing the land dated 18 th June 2013 placed on record, categorically indicates to the effect that village Badusarai is listed at serial No.7 in the list of villages in the Green Belt where "Low Density Residential Plots" are permitted.
8. In the fact and circumstances and the verdict of Smt. Sushma Kapoor (Supra), and submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents, categorically not opposing the prayer made by the petitioner, notice LR-48 dated 27th December 2021 bearing case no. 49/80/2021 titled "Gaon Sabha Badusarai vs Ranjan Rehani" and restraint order dated 7th December 2021 issued by SDM in respect of petitioner's land vide the notification F.SDMIKH/Misc. (RO)/2021/70605 are thus set aside and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are also set aside.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MAY 27, 2022 Aj/Ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(C) 8554/2022 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:01.06.2022 17:33:51