Delhi High Court - Orders
Atul Kumar Gupta Huf vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~183
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9857/2023 and CM APPL. 37941/2023
ATUL KUMAR GUPTA HUF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Faris, Advocate via video-
conferencing with Mr. P. Alam,
Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with
Mr. Vasuh Misra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 20.11.2023 Pursuant to notice issued on 27.11.2023, Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits, that though the respondent does not wish to file a formal counter-affidavit in the matter, their principal opposition to the present petition is that it suffers from unexplained and unjustified delay and latches, since the petitioner impugns order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, South-West in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 29//15 (5-17), 16 (4-19) & 17 (4-16) situate in Village :
Pindwala Khurd, Delhi ('subject land'), by which order the subject land has been vested in the Gaon Sabha of Village: Pindwala Khurd, Delhi.
2. On a pointed query, Mr. Srivastava submits however that there is no cavil that order dated 06.10.2020 was passed after the village in This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 9857/2023 Page 1 of 3 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 23/11/2023 at 22:47:43 question had already been urbanized vide notification dated 16.05.2017 issued under section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act'). Mr. Srivastava also fairly submits that there is also no doubt that the matter is covered by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Another vs. Narain Singh and Others 1 . In the circumstances, learned ASC submits that the court may pass such orders as may be deemed appropriate, duly considering the respondent's objections as to delay and latches.
3. To answer the objection of delay and latches, Mr. Mohd. Faris, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject land was part of HUF property which was under the care of the then Karta of the HUF Mr. Atul Kumar Gupta, who was ailing for several years; and unfortunately passed-away in March 2023. Counsel further submits that it is only after the demise of Atul Kumar Gupta that the petitioner HUF was taken-over by his wife - Mrs. Lokeshwari Devi - who has approached this court in in view of the latest position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra). Counsel accordingly explains that that is the cause for the delay in approaching the court; that such delay in any case is not inordinate; and stands duly explained and justified on that ground.
4. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing circumstances, in the opinion of this court, the delay in approaching the court is neither inordinate nor unexplained. Furthermore, the issue raised by way of the present 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 9857/2023 Page 2 of 3 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 23/11/2023 at 22:47:43 petition goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate who has passed the impugned order in view of the verdict of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra), para 36 whereof reads as under :
"36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and loses its legal significance."
5. Clearly, therefore when impugned order dated 06.10.2020 came to be passed, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 to pass any order since the village in which the subject land is situate stood urbanised vide notification dated 16.05.2017 issued under section 507(a) of the DMC Act.
6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed, thereby quashing and setting-aside order dated 06.10.2020 made by the District Magistrate, South-West in Appeal No. 35/2014 in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 29//15 (5-17),16 (4-19) & 17 (4-16) situate in Village :
Pindwala Khurd, Delhi.
7. The petition stands disposed-of.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 20, 2023 ds This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(C) 9857/2023 Page 3 of 3 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 23/11/2023 at 22:47:44