CASE STUDY : Landlord and Tenant

IN THE COURT OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI In the matter of: 1. Sh. Radhey Shyam S/o Lakhmi Chand 2. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta 3. Sh. Ajay Gupta Both sons of late Sat Narain Through their attorney Sh. Mahesh Chand S/o late Yogeshwar Dayal 361, Main Bus Stand, Sant nagar Vill. Burari, Delhi-84. 4. Smt. Chitra Navtia W/o Sh. Nath Mal Navatia Through her attorney Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Balak Ram, R/o Village Aasoda,, Tehsil Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad U.P. ? Petitioners Versus 1. Gaon Sabha Burari Through B.D.O. (Civil Lines) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54 2. Union of India Through Secretary/Office of Commissioner, B.D.O. (Civil Lines) Tis Hazari, Delhi-54. Respondents ? Respondent Case No. 66/2007 Revision Petition Under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Facts of the case • Shri Radhey Shyam and Shri Sat Narian s/o Lakhmi Chand were the recorded owners of Khasra No. 23/13 (5-18) in the revenue estate of village Burari (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). • After the death of Shri Sat Narain s/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand, his share in the land was mutated in favour of his legal heir i.e. Shri Sanjiv Gupta and Shri Ajay Gupta vide mutation order dated February 20, 2001 passed by Naib Tehsildar. • On the basis of a report of the halqa patwari dated October 25, 2005, wherein it was alleged that the agricultural land is being converted to non-agricultural land use by way of dumping of earth and plotting in contravention of Section 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act,1954 ( D.L.R. Act). • The proceedings u/s 81 of D.L.R. Act, were initiated against the recorded bhumidhar in the court of Revenue Assistant/SDM (Civil Lines) and on January 04, 2006, a conditional order was passed by the RA/SDM. • Further, above mentioned conditional order was made absolute by the Revenue Assistant/SDM (Civil Lines) vide his order dated April 12, 2006 by vesting the suit land, i.e. khasra no 23/13 (5-18) in the gaon sabha. • Afterwards, a number of applications were filed under Appendix VI Rule 14 read with section 151 CPC by Sh. Mahesh Tyagi, Sh. Ramesh Tyagi and Sh. Rakesh Kumar on behalf of respondents before the SDM. • One application was also filed by Smt. Chitra Nawatia w/o Nathmal Navatia under Order 01 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC who had bought 01 bigha and 01 biswa out of the suit land herein; vide registered sale deed dated July 10, 1991. • Aggrieved by the order of Revenue Assistant/SDM (Civil Lines), the present revision petition has been filed by Sh. Radhey Shaym & Ors. u/s 187 of the D.L.R. Act against the order dated April 12, 2006 passed in Case No. 239/RA/CL/05 and against order dated February 23, 2007 vide which applications under Appendix VI Rule 14 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1954 were dismissed. ISSUES 1) Whether the respondent has issued the reasonable notice to the petitioner which is a mandatory provision u/s 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 or not? 2) Whether application under Appendix VI Rule 14 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1954 rules is valid or not? 3) Whether the present revision petition u/s 187 of D.L.R filed by Sh. Radhey Shaym & Ors is applicable or not? 4) Whether Smt. Chitra Nawatia is entiled for 01 bigha and 01 biswa out of the suited land? Sec. 81 Ejectment for use of land in contravention of the provisions of this Act.- (1) A Bhumidhar or an Asami shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the land holder, as the case may be, for using land for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and also pay damages equivalent to the cost of works which may be required to render the land capable of use for the said purposes. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) the Revenue Assistant also may, on receiving information or on his own motion, eject the Bhumidhar or Asami, as the case may be, and also recover the damages referred to in sub-section (1), after following such procedure as may be prescribed” Sec. 187. Power of Chief Commissioner to call for cases.- The Chief Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding referred to in Schedule I decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears— (a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, or (b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) To have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The Chief Commissioner may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE 1. PETITIONER- No notices under Rule 21 B of DLR Rules were issued to the recorded bhumidhar, which is a mandatory provision under Section 81 of DLR Act, 1954. RESPONDENT – On February 20, 2001. Land Reform 48 was issued in the name of Shri Sat Narain s/o Shri Lakhmi Chand only, who had already died and mutation had already been sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs i.e. Shri Sanjiv Gupta and Shri Ajay Gupta vide order of Naib Tehsildar. On October 25, 2005 - Report of halqa patwari was also referred, on the basis of proceeding u/s 81 of DLR Act had been instituted. The report of halqa patwari bears the name of recorded bhumidhars as “Radhey Shyam s/o Lakhmi Chand, Sanjiv Gupta and Ajay Gupta s/o Sh. Sat Narain r/o 11705-6, Shakti Nagar, Delhi”. PETITIONER- No efforts were made by the civil line (Ld. RA/SDM) to ensure the delivery of notice to the petitioners. Even Ld. RA/SDM (Civil Lines) did not bother to inquire whether the suit land is being used for agricultural purposes or otherwise or who is in possession of the suit land as required under Rule 21-B of DLR Rules. RESPONDENT- It was not ensured by the Ld RA/SDM (Civil Lines) whether the conditional order, which was never served, was actually served upon the recorded bhumidhars or not. . Gaon Sabha, Kamalpur Burari submitted that Ld. RA/SDM (Civil Lines) followed the due process as per law and notices were issued to all the petitioners herein. However, Counsel for Gaon Sabha could not put forth any convincing evidence to counter the petitioner’s claim.As they don’t issue the reasonable notice to all the petitioners. Order On April 12, 2006 and February 23, 2007, after listening to both the sides and upon perusal of the impugned orders dated and the material available on record, the following points emerge. That – ? During the proceedings u/s 81 of DLR Act, 1954 before RA/SDM, no appearance from the side of respondent on the said date date. December 22, 2005- Sh. Sumender s/o Sh. Radhey Shyam joined the proceedings. December 27, 2005 -the case was taken up by the RA/SDM, but again none was present. ? January 04, 2006 -Conditional order & final order of vesting the suit land in the gaon sabha dated April 12, 2006 passed by Ld. RA/SDM (Civil Lines) against the deceased Shri Sat Narain s/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand. ? April 06, 2006- Vesting the suit land in the gaon sabha refers to the report of halka patwari reportedly issued through Tehsildar (Civil Lines) dated, but the report is not signed by the Tehsildar. April 12, 2006- Conditional order was passed by the RA/SDM (Civil Lines) and the same was made absolute. ? On April 13, 2010 -Receive the record of the labour court which was summoned by this court , also perused and it was observed that the case u/s 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 was instituted on the suit land in the court of RA on December 12, 2005 and notices in the form of LR 48 under Rule 21(B) were issued in the name of Sh. Sat Narain s/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand and BDO (North) through Panchayat Secretary for December 22, 2005. ? Notice was issued in the name of Sh. Sat Narain s/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand only who had already died while the name of his legal heirs had already been mutated in the revenue records. ? There is no proof available in the lower court file regarding the delivery of notices or service of conditional order on the recorded bhumidhar. CASES REFERRED 1) Hon’ble Supreme Court had held - “Kanwar Pal & Ors. V/s Gram Sabha Kirari” AIR 1996 (SC) 2780” that: ? “Where co-sharer are in individual possession of land and agricultural land put to non-agricultural use. For taking action u/s 81 notice is essential to be issued individually to all the appellants before any action is sought to be taken. Ejectment notice served on one co-sharer would be no notice on other co-sharers.” ? It is clear from the above that notices must be issued to every co-sharer. However, in the present case notices were issued in favour of an already dead person, whose share had also been mutated in favour of his legal heir. ? Further, while Ld. RA/SDM decided the application of Smt. Chitra Nawatia under Order 01 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, no opportunity was provided to the applicant to present her case effectively. But, she too must be given an opportunity, ? Since July 10, 1991 Smt. Chitra Nawatia had already purchased 1 bigha and 1 biswa land out of 01 bigha and 01 biswa of suit land by the registered sale deed & also created her right and title for the land. 2) The Hon’ble High Court has held- “Satya Rani V/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi” WP(C) no. 12784/2009” that: ? Appeal of bona-fide purchaser was allowed (whose name was not mutated in the revenue record) and the matter was remanded back to the Addl. Collector to hear the petitioner on merits. ? The lower court has failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, and no opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. ¬¬¬¬ The order dated April 12, 2006 and February 23, 2007 of Ld. RA/SDM are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the RA/SDM (Civil Lines) to hear afresh by providing fair opportunity to all concerned. Pronounced in the open Court. (D.M. SPOLIA) Financial Commissioner, Delhi. Final order ORDER dated: August 14, 2014 • This order shall dispose of the revision petition filed u/s 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DLR Act’) filed by Sh. Radhey Shyam & Ors. against the order dated April 12, 2006 of Revenue Assistant/SDM (Civil Lines) passed in case no. 239/RA/CL/05. • Order dated February 23, 2007 vide which application under Appendix VI Rule 14 of DLR Rules has been dismissed.