Delhi District Court
Delhi vs Union Of India on 7 April, 2007
Suit No.294-00-04 1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI H.S.SHARMA, LD. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
DELHI.
Suit No.294-00-04
1 SHRI NATHI
2 SHRI HARPAL
3 SHRI RATTAN SINGH
All sons of Late Shri Zulfi
4 SHRI JAI KARAN SINGH
5 SHRI DHARAMBIR
Both sons of Late Shri Ram Parshad,
6 SHRI KHEM CHAND
7 SHRI RAM PAL
Both sons of Shri Deewan Hukam Chand
8 SHRI KHEN CHAND
Son of Shri Ram Karan
9 SHRI HARDAM
10 SHRI BALJEET
11 SHRI HAR SARUP
12 SHRI DEEPA RAM
All sons of Shri Pikhar
All R/o
Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. ..... Plaintiffs.
VERSUS
1 UNION OF INDIA,
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2 THE SECRETARY
Land & Building Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
Page 1 of page 9
Suit No.294-00-04 2
3 THE SECRETARY,
Delhi Development Authority,.
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Market, New Delhi.
4 THE SECRETARY,
Ministry of Works & Buildings
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
5 GAON SABHA, TUGHLAKABAD,
Through B.D.O., (South),
D.C.Office, M.B.Road,
Saket, New Delhi. ..... Defendants.
Date of Institution : 04-05-2000
Date of receipt of this case in this court : 17-08-2004
Date of Arguments : 13-03-2007
Date of Decision : 07-04-2007
Shri N.C.Chechi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs.
Shri S.K.Puri, Advocate for Defendants no.1 to 4.
Shri H.K.L.Sehgal, Advocate for Defendant no.3.
Ms.Usha Pandey, Advocate for Defendant no.5.
JUDGMENT
This order shall dispose of issues no.2, 3, 7 & 8 which had been treated as Preliminary Issues.
2 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
3 The present suit for declaration Simplicitor was filed by the Page 2 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 3 Plaintiffs way back on 04-05-2000.
4 The case of the Plaintiffs in brief is that as per the Revenue Record/Jamabandi for the year 1948-49, they are/were co-sharers in possession of the land bearing Khasra numbers 784(0-10), 2537/1676 (273-10), 2541/1679 (64-10), 2505/1646 (0-15), 2535/1675 (63-0), 2506/1646 (22-14), 2509/1646 (206-15) situated in village Tuglakabad, Capital Territory of Delhi. They had 1/26th share in Khasra No.416(3-0), 2869/204(199-8), 283(105-7), 295(60-4), 408(11-10), 447(1-3), 403 (5-3), 2882/483(0-5) & 529 min (64-0). The aforesaid land has been described as Gair Mumkin Pahar. According to the Plaintiffs, it could not have been used for cultivation purposes. It has always been used for extracting Bajri (stone dust) & Rori. Therefore, according to the Plaintiffs, it is not "Land" as defined under Section 3(13) Delhi Land Reforms Act (in short the Act). The Act is not applicable to this land. However, the Revenue Authorities have wrongly shown it to be the land of Gaon Sabha, Tuglakabad. The village had been urbanized in 1965. As a result of which the Gaon Sabha stood dissolved. Thereafter, the land was mutated in the name of Union of India without there being any Page 3 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 4 notice to the Plaintiffs. Now, the DDA is claiming that this land has been placed at its disposal vide notification dated 31-08-1973. The Plaintiffs claim that all these acts right from vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha i.e., the entries in the Revenue Record, the vesting of the land in Union of India and thereafter, the notification dated 31-08-1973 are illegal and void. No notice had been given to the Plaintiffs. They are still owners and in possession of the land in dispute. Recently, the Defendants have built up boundary walls around it i.e., the land in dispute. The Plaintiffs, in order to clear the cloud of title, had sent a notice dated 17-08-1994 to Defendants no.1 to 4. However, they did not receive any reply. Hence this suit for declaration to the effect that the entries in the name of Gaon Sabha in 1958, the mutation in the name of Union of India and the placement of the land in dispute at the disposal of the DDA are illegal and void.
5 Initially, the Gaon Sabha had not been impleaded as a Defendant. However, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha on 07-06-2004 for impleading it as a party, was allowed by me vide order dated 11-02-2005. This is how Gaon Sabha Page 4 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 5 had been impleaded as Defendant no.5.
6 On the basis of pleadings of the parties a number of issues had been framed on 27-02-2006. The above numbered issues were treated as Preliminary Issues.
7 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the file as well as the judgments relied on by Ld. Counsel for the parties. 8 The present suit has been filed in 2000. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they had issued a notice on 17-08-1994. A perusal of copy of the notice dated 17-08-1994 reveals that the plaint contains all those facts which find mention in this notice. No new fact (other than the facts contained in the notice dated 17-08-1994) have been added in the plaint. Thus, this being a suit for declaration simplicitor is time barred. This is one aspect. Now, I take the issues, one by one. Issue no.2 Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD Issue no.7 Whether the suit is barred under Section 185 DLR Act?OPD Page 5 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 6 9 Admittedly, the Plaintiffs are relying on the Jamabandi for the year 1948-49. The property in dispute is admittedly Gair Mumkin Pahar. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has relied on Captain Kashi Ram Vs. Mir Singh decided by our own Hon'ble High Court on 21.12.1970. However, the points raised in this particular judgment had been taken into account by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgments What is the status of Gair Mumkin Pahar and what has been the affect of Delhi Land Reforms Act on the areas described as Gair Mumkin Pahar, had been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sher Singh & Ors. II (1997) CLT 58 & Gaon Sabha & Anr. Vs. Nathi & Ors. 110 (2004) DLT 549 (SC). In fact, in Union of India Vs. Sher Singh (Supra), the matter had been represented on behalf of Sher Singh & Ors by Shri L.C.Chechi, Advocate who had filed the present suit along with Shri N.S.Chechi, Advocate. In Sher Singh's case (Supra), it was held in para 7 that "Gair Mumkin Pahar is not a land cultivated by the proprietor and so, it is not a Khudkhasht Land". In para 9 of the judgment, it was held that "the waste land included in the holding of the proprietor stands excepted from the waste land contemplated by Section 7 of the Act". In para 13, it was observed that "thus, it could be Page 6 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 7 seen that except the land for the time being comprised in any holding or a grove, rest of all lands whether cultivable or otherwise vests in Gaon Sabha from the date of commencement of the Act."
10 In the present case, the Plaintiffs are not claiming that they themselves used to cultivate the land in dispute. It is their case that the land is not cultivable and it has always been used for extracting Bajri and Rori. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Sher Singh's case (Supra), the land in dispute had vested in the Gaon Sabha after the Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force.
11 In Gaon Sabha Vs. Natthi & Ors. (Supra), the principles had again been discussed and reiterated. In that case also, the land was Gair Mumkin Pahar. The Gaon Sabha had claimed that it vested in it because of the Act. The owners had asked for the amount of compensation. 12 It was held that the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of amount made by the owners/Proprietors. In para 15, it was held that "Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit Page 7 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 8 which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of vesting the land in Gaon Sabha is illegal."
13 Both these judgments squarely cover the present case. In fact, all the arguments which could have been raised in the present case, had been advanced before the Apex Court in Gaon Sabha vs. Natthi & Ors. (Supra). I need not discuss those judgments in detail. Both these issues are decided in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. Issue no.3 Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. If so, its effect?OPD 14 In view of findings on issue no.2, I am refraining from giving any verdict as suffice it to say that the Plaintiffs are seeking the relief of declaration simplicitor and this particular relief without injunction or recovery of possession would be of no value.
Issue no.8 Whether the suit is barred under Section 80 CPC & Under Section 99 Panchayat Raj Act?OPD 15 It is the case of the Plaintiffs that a notice dated 17-08-1994 had been sent by them through registered AD. The suit had been filed Page 8 of page 9 Suit No.294-00-04 9 against Defendants no.1 to 4 to whom the notice had allegedly been issued. Defendant no.5 had been impleaded after institution of the suit and that too on its own application. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Relief 16 In view of findings on issues no.2 & 7, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed as it is not maintainable. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (H.S.SHARMA)
On the 7th day of April, 2007 ADJ/DELHI
Page 9 of page 9