Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Vipul Aggarwal vs M/S Bharat Satcom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 18 April, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 57/2021
SHRI VIPUL AGGARWAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.
versus
M/S BHARAT SATCOM PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Bharat Singh, Mr Abhigya
Kushwaha and Ms. Sunvita Yadav,
Advocates for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.04.2022 I.A. 9239/2021 (u/ Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Sections 11, 20 & 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter "CPC"] on behalf of Defendant No. 1 for rejection of the Plaint owing to lack of jurisdiction and being barred by limitation)
1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Sections 11, 20 and 151 of CPC is filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. The case of Applicant/ Defendant No. 1 is as follows:
2.1 The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain/ adjudicate the above-captioned suit since the suit land viz. bearing khasra No. 55(4-13), situated at revenue estate of village Jhangola, Delhi-110036), is an agricultural land. This was the position that existed at the relevant time i.e., January, 2014 and continues to the same, as on date.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 57/2021 Page 1 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.04.2022 13:01:38
2.2 The recorded owners of the land are Karmu and Ors, as is evident from the revenue record annexed along with the plaint viz. khasra girdhavari, khatauni, etc. 2.3 Karmu and Ors. left the place long time back and only 'cultivator rights' on the suit land in question are available. In January, 2014 Defendant No. 1 purchased the said cultivator rights from Defendant No. 2 and his name stood recorded in the revenue records, as the cultivator, after proper verification and following due process of law. 2.4 Plaintiff never had 'cultivator possession' rights of land in question.
The same is evident from the fact that his name was never entered in khasra girdhavari. Thus, the legality of: (a) the insertion of the name of Defendant No. 1 and (b) deletion of the name of Plaintiff in the revenue record can only be decided by - concerned Revenue Authority, as per the provisions of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 [hereinafter "DLR Act"]. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamla Prasad v. Krishna Kant Pathak.1 2.5 The objection of the Plaintiff/ non-Applicant is that the provisions of DLR Act by virtue of notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [hereinafter "DMC Act"], is irrelevant and misconceived. The land continues to be an agricultural land since land use has not changed. Moreover, the transaction of purchase of 'cultivator rights' happened in 2014 and the notification of urbanization was issued in the year 2019. The said notification would have no bearing as the relevant date for determining the dispute would be the date of the transaction of purchase which occurred i.e., Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 57/2021 Page 2 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.04.2022 13:01:38 2014.
3. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Singhal, counsel for non-Applicant/ Plaintiff submits that pursuant to the notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act, the land in question ceases to be 'rural area' and DLR Act is inapplicable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha.2
4. The Court has considered the contentions of the counsel for the parties.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Indu Khorana (supra) has discussed the legal implication of a notification issued qua urbanization of a land under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act. The Court therein held that once a notification is issued under the afore-noted provision, it results in the land being classified as an 'urban land'.3 Consequently, the provisions of DLR Act would cease to apply. In the said case, the Division Bench also observed that the view taken by this Court on the above proposition is consistent.4 While the said case pertained to an action taken by Revenue Authorities in respect of construction carried out by the Petitioner therein on a piece of land, nevertheless the ratio of the said decision, interpreting the legal effect of a notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act, is relevant to the 1 (2007) 4 SCC 213.
2Judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 4143/2003 dated 26th March, 2010.
3Section 3(13) of the DLR Act.
4See: Trikha Ram v. Sahib Ram, 69 (1997) DLT 749 and Madho Prasad v. Sh. Ram Kishanand Ors., 2001(7) AD (Delhi) 72. The Court held where a land in question has been urbanized under a notification under Section 507 of DMC Act, the provisions of the DLR Act would not be applicable.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 57/2021 Page 3 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.04.2022 13:01:38facts of the present case. In another case of Narain Singh and Anr. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., 5 the Division Bench followed Indu Khorana (supra) and observed that "the very purport of a Notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act is to convert the land from agricultural to urban.". It must also be noted that the appeal filed by Gaon Sabha against the decision of Indu Khurana (supra) was dismissed.6
6. It is undisputed that a notification has been issued under Section 507(a) of DMC Act in respect of the suit land. Therefore, the suit land ceases to be an agricultural land. Provisions of the DLR Act are, therefore, applicable as the land has been urbanized. The contention of the Applicant regarding lack of jurisdiction of this Court, is misconceived.
7. That apart, the relief sought by the Plaintiff cannot be urged before the Revenue Authorities, as contended by the Applicant. The Plaintiff has, inter-alia, prayed as follows: -
"(a) A decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants holding that the Sale Deed dated 17.1.2014 registered as document no. 246 in Book no.1, Volume no. 3193 on pages no. 159 to 165 registered on 23.1.2014 with the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in favour of defendant no.1 executed by defendant no.2 is without any authority, void ab-initio and liable to be declared void and no right, title and interest passed in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the suit land bearing khasra no. 55(4-13), situated at revenue estate of village Jhangola, Delhi-110036"
8. The case as set up by the Plaintiff is that: M/s. Jindal Real Build Pvt. Ltd. purchased the land in question from one Mr. Amit Mathur vide registered Sale Deed dated 04th May, 2011. The Plaintiff in turn purchased 5 MANU/DE/6513/2012.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 57/2021 Page 4 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.04.2022 13:01:38the land in question from M/s. Jindal Real Build Pvt. Ltd. by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 08th December, 2011. It is also asserted that in March, 2017, the Plaintiff, after tracing the revenue record, learnt that the land in question stood transferred by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 by virtue of a forged and fabricated Sale Deed dated 17th January, 2014. Plaintiff filed police complaints before the concerned Police Station and before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the same are pending investigation.
9. The afore-noted contentions are disputed and having regard to the disputes between the parties, the relief as sought for can only be adjudicated before a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction and not by a Revenue Court (under DLR Act).
10. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the present application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
CS(OS) 57/2021
11. List before the Ld. Joint Registrar on 20th May, 2022 for marking of the exhibits and admission/ denial of document(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 18, 2022/nd 6 S.L.P. No. 16106/2012 dated 05th April, 2016.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 57/2021 Page 5 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.04.2022 13:01:38