Delhi High Court - Orders
Sant Nirankari Mandal vs Lt Governor Of Delhi And Ors on 22 November, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~185 & 186
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15138/2023
SANT NIRANKARI MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Mr.
Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Akshay
Sharma, Ms. Harshita Sukhija and
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates with
Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Secretary,
S.N.M.
versus
LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate for Mr.
Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing
Counsel (Civil) GNCTD.
+ W.P.(C) 15141/2023
SANT NIRANKARI MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Mr.
Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Akshay
Sharma, Ms. Harshita Sukhija and
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates with
Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Secretary,
S.N.M.
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate for Mr.
Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing
Counsel (Civil) GNCTD.
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 1 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 22.11.2023 CM APPL. 60488/2023 & CM APPL. 60489/2023 in W.P.(C)15138/2023 CM APPL. 60492/2023 & CM APPL. 60493/2023 in W.P.(C)15141/2023 Exemptions granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & CM APPL. 60487/2023 W.P.(C) 15141/2023 & CM APPL. 60491/2023 By way of the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15141/2023 impugns order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor remanding Case No. 23/2021 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil Lines), Delhi („SDM‟) for re-consideration; and in W.P.(C) No. 15138/2023 the petitioner impugns order dated 09.08.2023, whereby the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor was pleased to dismiss an application seeking recall of order dated 18.01.2023 passed in the matter.
2. The genesis of the matter is order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the SDM in proceedings arising from a complaint alleging that the petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act, 1960 („DLHC Act‟) read with Rules 8 and 38 of the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Rules, 1961.
3. After a detailed consideration of the matter, by way of order dated 03.03.2021, the SDM inter-alia held as under :
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 2 of 7The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57 3.1. That vide order dated 25.06.2012 passed earlier, the petitioner was declared bhumidar in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 21/22 (5-0), 21/23 (4-09), 32/l/2 (2-14), 32/2 (2-06), 32/3 (3-
08), 32/9 (2-16) and 32/10 (1-06) situate in the revenue estate of Village : Jharoda Majra, Delhi; which order was never assailed and is therefore final;
3.2. That the land possessed by the petitioner was not found beyond the ceiling limit at the relevant time; and that therefore, the provisions of the DLHC Act could not have been invoked at a subsequent stage;
3.3. That as per notification dated 16.05.2017 issued under section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 („DMC Act‟), Village : Jharoda Majra stands „urbanised‟; and therefore the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 („DLR Act‟) have ceased to apply;
3.4. That vide notification dated 16.06.2017 issued by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor under section 12 of the Delhi Development Act 1957 („DDA Act‟), Village : Jharoda Majra has also been declared as a „development area‟, whereby the land in question now vests in the Delhi Development Authority and is governed by municipal laws, inter-alia the DMC Act, and by reason thereof the subject land is no longer amenable to the DLHC Act.
4. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that based on the aforesaid detailed consideration of the matter, vide order dated 03.03.2021, the then SDM came to the This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 3 of 7 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57 correct conclusion that the petitioner is owner of 1/8th share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 22//10 (4-16), 11 (4-16), 19/2 (2-09), 21 (5-
04) and 22/2 (3-04) situate in the revenue estate of Village : Jharoda Majra; and that therefore no directions under the DLHC Act can be issued.
5. Mr. Jain points-out that order dated 03.03.2021 was impugned by way of a revision petition filed before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor and during pendency of the said proceedings, in a curious turn of events, the successor SDM moved an application in those proceedings submitting as follows :
"2. That present Presiding Officer recently joined the office of respondent no 1 (as SDM, Civil Lines Delhi) and while going through the case file for the purpose of hearing of the present case, prima-facie some apparent errors and irregularities have been noticed, which might have occurred during proceedings before the Ld. Predecessor of the respondent no 1 due to misrepresentations or wrong interpretation by the original parties of the case which may be rectified after Re-hearing of the case if the case is remanded back to the respondent no 1.
3. That the present case is based on the documents of public domain which are required to be reconsidered in the light of facts and circumstances of the case for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case."
6. Mr. Jain submits, that based upon the application so filed, vide order dated 18.01.2023 the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor was pleased to remand the matter to the SDM, with a direction to pass a speaking order afresh after considering all aspects and contentions of the parties.
7. It is fairly pointed-out that order dated 18.01.2023 records that in the proceedings before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had also expressed her no-objection to the This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 4 of 7 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57 matter being remanded, provided no pre-conditions or directions are issued to the SDM.
8. Be that as it may, Mr. Jain contends, that apart from the very peculiar circumstances that the successor SDM himself moved an application seeking remand of the matter to his own court for re-consideration (to which the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor acceded without independent application of mind), the fact remains, that as a matter of law, admittedly the village in question stands urbanised under the DMC Act and the area has also been declared as a „development area‟ under the DDA Act. It is argued that in such circumstances, the subject land ceases to be agricultural/rural land and is therefore no longer amenable to the rigours of the DLHC Act.
9. Mr. Jain further argues that, as recorded in order dated 03.03.2021, the fact that the petitioner is bhumidar in respect of the subject land is not disputed; and furthermore, by reason of urbanisation of the village, the SDM has no jurisdiction over the subject land any longer. Mr Jain submits that in these circumstances, regardless of the concession made by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the matter may be remanded to the SDM, clearly the SDM himself could neither have sought remand of the case; nor is it permissible for the SDM to proceed with the matter since he no longer has jurisdiction over the subject land.
10. To fortify his submission, Mr Jain draws attention to the provisions of sections 2(h) of the DLHC Act, which says that the term "land" appearing in the DLHC Act has the same meaning as assigned to that word under the DLR Act; and that under the DLR Act, the word "land"
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 5 of 7The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57 only refers to agricultural land in terms of section 3(13) of the DLR Act, which reads as follows :
(13) "land" except in sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes-
(a) buildings appurtenant thereto,
(b) village abadis,
(c) grovelands,
(d) lands 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 building in belts or areas adjacent to Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may be a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto;
11. Upon a prima-facie view of the matter, issue notice.
12. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel (Civil) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2; accepts notice; and seeks time to file counter-affidavit.
13. Upon the petitioner taking requisite steps, let notice be sent to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.
14. Let counter-affidavits, be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinders thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
15. Mr. Singh concurs in the submission made by Mr. Jain that after urbanisation of the village in question, the SDM ceases to have jurisdiction over the subject land even under the DLHC Act.
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 6 of 7The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57
16. Mr. Jain submits that vide order dated 04.08.2023 made in the proceedings pending before the SDM, the petitioner has been directed to submit certain documents relating to the subject land; and that direction is (effectively) returnable for today, i.e. 22.11.2023 at 03:30 p.m.
17. Mr. Jain submits that since the SDM has no jurisdiction over the subject land, the SDM could not have issued such direction; and the petitioner is apprehensive that some coercive action may ensue against the petitioner at the hands of the SDM.
18. Upon a prima-facie view of the submissions made and of the documents on record, further proceedings pending before the SDM (Civil Lines), Delhi pursuant to order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor in Case No. 23/2021, in relation to the petitioner/Sant Nirankari Mandal, are stayed, till the next date of hearing.
19. Re-notify on 13th March 2024.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 22, 2023 ds This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 15138/2023 & W.P.(C) 15141/2023 Page 7 of 7 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/11/2023 at 02:34:57