Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 507 in Smt. Swaran Lata And Ors. vs Shri Kulbhushan Lal And Ors. on 31 January, 2014Matching Fragments
16. Learned counsel also argued that the impugned judgment is unsustainable because several properties had been urbanized on account of notifications issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It was submitted that on account of this development, the provisions of Delhi Reforms Act would not apply. Counsel relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha and Ors.,MANU/DE/0969/2010.
Analysis and Findings
38. With respect to the finding of issue of whether the plots bearing Khasra No. 32/28/1 and 32/28/2 are to be considered under Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act or under the HSA, and whether the remaining three properties are similarly to be dealt with under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, this Court notices that all four properties are located in Mehrauli, Tughlakabad and Badarpur. All these areas have been notified as "urbanized villages" that cease to be considered rural areas, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD")under notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, by way of notifications F.9(2)/66/Law/Corpn dated 28.05.1966 (Badarpur and Tughlakabad) and 13.06.1962 (Mehrauli). The learned Single Judge held that even if this were the case, properties in these areas would continue to be regulated by the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The question that arises, thus, is whether a land, irrespective of the fact that is it in an urban or a rural area as determined by the MCD continues to be agricultural land and thus, subject to the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
39. This matter has been previously considered by this Court. A learned Single Judge in Trikha Ram v. Sahib Ram, 69 (1997) DLT 749, held that where an area is urbanized under a notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would cease to apply. This decision was followed by another Single Judge in Madho Prasad v.
RFA(OS) 11/2010 Page 38 Shri Ram Kishan and Ors.,2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 72. However, given a contrary opinion in WP(C) No. 4143/2003, dated 25.08.2004, the matter was referred to a Division Bench of this Court, in a decision reported as Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha and Ors.,MANU/DE/0969/2010, where the reference was categorically answered in the following terms:
"11. We thus hold that once rural area is urbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, provisions of Delhi Reforms Act will cease to apply. The reference stands answered accordingly."
40. That decision was subsequently sought to be impugned and referred to a larger bench in Narain Singh and Anr. v. Financial Commissionerand Ors., in LPA No. 591/2008, decision dated 22.11.2012, where the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the view in Indu Khorana (supra), holding that "the very purport of a Notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act is to convert the land from agricultural to urban." In view of these consistent findings, it is clear that the effect of the notification under Section 507 in this case were to remove the four properties from the purview of the Delhi Land Reforms Act as the subject-matter of the Act is rural agricultural properties, rather than urban lands. Accordingly, this finding of the learned Single Judge that the four properties in question were not to devolve upon the appellant here in the share ratio above specified is liable to be set aside.