ORDER
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. The application being IA No. 5279/2008 has been made by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was not maintainable under law.
2. The first ground taken is that the suit has been filed for declaring a registered sale deed dated 17th June, 1982 as null and void and for declaration of consequent mutation proceedings in the year 1986 mutating the agricultural land in the name of predecessor Shri Madan Lal as null and void. The suit was barred by limitation as well as barred by the provisions of Delhi Land Reform Act and other Revenue laws and cannot be entertained. All other reliefs prayed by the plaintiffs emanate from the first relief of declaring the sale deed and the mutation as null and void.
3. It would be advantageous to narrate the facts stated in the plaint briefly. It is stated that in the year 1982, Shri Madan Lal had advanced a sum of Rs. 48,000/- as financial help to Sh. Harpal Singh but taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of Sh. Harpal Singh, instead of getting a mortgage deed registered with sub Registrar in respect of the land in question, he got registered a sale deed of the land in his favor transferring 2 bighas one biswa of land in Khasra No. 195, Village Mohammadpur, Majri in his favor. The sale deed was registered as documents No. 3478 in Additional Book No. I, Volume 4014, Page No. 64-67 on 17.6.1982. Further funds were taken from Shri Madan Lal in 1989 and again in 1989 Shri Madan Lal paid Rs. 45,000/- and instead of getting a mortgage deed, got registered a sale deed in a similar fashion in respect of the land. Sh. Harpal Singh expired on 2.11.2000. It is alleged that plaintiff Nos. 6 to 10 applied to Revenue Authority for change of their names in the Revenue Record and at that time plaintiffs were informed that out of 4 bighas and 12 biswas of land, initially owned by Harpal Singh only one bigha and one biswa stood in his names and rest of the property has been sold by him and 2 bighas and one biswa land was standing mutated in the name of Shri Madan Lal since 1986. It is pleaded that plaintiffs had not received a notice on mutation so they were not aware of this mutation. Plaintiffs had been in possession of property all alone. Some anti-social elements came to suit property of the plaintiffs and attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. However, this attempt to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs was averted due to alertness of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the sale deed in favor of Shri Madan Lal and then learnt that it was not a mortgage deed but a sale deed. The allegations of malafide have been made against defendants and of their conspiracy with Revenue Officials and Police to the effect that the Revenue Officials wrongfully transferred and mutated the property in the name of the defendants.
4. The prayer made in the plaint is to declare the sale deed dated 17th June, 1982 as null and void, the mutation proceedings and mutation done in the name of Shri Madan Lal and other defendants as null and void. It is alleged that an agreement to sell dated 9th March, 2006 in favor of defendant No. 4 and registered before the sub Registrar vi(c) Saraswati Vihar, Delhi as document No. 7422, Additional Book No. 4, Volume 383, Pages 10 to 13 be also declared as null and void. Another relief claimed by the plaintiffs is that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land measuring 1680 sq. yards out of 2 bigha one biswa land and that the sale document in favor of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Late Shri Madan Lal be declared null and void. The alternate prayer made is that in case the sale deed cannot be declared null and void on the ground claim being time barred, the plaintiffs be declared owner of the land on the basis of adverse possession since plaintiffs have perfected their title by prescription being in possession of the land for more than 12 years. In order to get this relief, a declaration is sought that the entries in Revenue Record in respect of the land in question be declared null and void and Court should declare that physical possession of property was never handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendants and plaintiffs always remained in possession of the property.
5. It is submitted by the defendant No. 4 that the sale deed, the declaration of which is sought to be null and void, was registered by the Registrar only after grant of no objection certificate by revenue authorities for sale of the suit land in favor of Shri Madan Lal. NOC is granted to the owner by the competent authority as per the provisions of Delhi (Land and Transfer) Restriction Act and the rules framed there under on an application of owner. No sale deed can be registered in respect of the agricultural land without obtaining NOC from competent authority and in this case NOC No. 5579 dated 31.5.1987 was obtained by Harpal Singh and is mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, the plea of the plaintiffs that the sale deed was obtained by fraud is contrary to the record. It is further stated that after sale of the property, Shri Madan Lal and other defendant Nos. 1 to 3 applied for sanctioning of mutation in their names and mutation was done by the Revenue Authorities as per the provisions of Delhi land Reforms Act, after giving notice to the earlier Bhumidar i.e. Harpal Singh and after affording an opportunity to him. The mutation in favor of Shri Madan Lal was effected vide order dated 7.1.1986 in case File No. M-578/NT/NG/85-86 and the record of the case shows that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were duly served a notice. It is further stated that the order of the mutation cannot be challenged before this Court and the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was barred under provisions of Section 83(c) of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 which bars the institution of any suit or other proceedings in Civil Court in respect of formation of record or preparation of record or correction of revenue record and only Revenue Authorities have powers to deal with this. If the plaintiffs were not satisfied from the order of Revenue Authority only an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 64 of the Act. Plaintiffs had not preferred any appeal against the above mutation sanctioned in favor of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in 1986.
6. It is undisputed that the sale deed was executed in 1982 by Harpal Singh. The sale deed was in respect of agricultural land and could not have been registered without a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for sale of the property in favor of the person to whom it was sold. A perusal of copy of the sale deed shows that ‘No Objection Certificate’ was seen by Registrar and its number is mentioned on the sale deed itself. The plea of the plaintiffs that sale deed was obtained by fraud, on the face of it, is contrary to the record and therefore baseless. Even otherwise, sale deed could have been challenged by Harpal Singh within 3 years of its registration. Harpal Singh had knowledge of what document he had executed as he had applied for NOC and obtained NOC for registration of sale deed. Harpal Singh did not challenge the sale deed during his lifetime. It is only after 6 years of his death that his legal heirs have filed this suit challenging the sale deed. The suit is measurably barred by limitation. The plea that the intention was to create a mortgage only is also not tenable. Section 15 of Delhi Land Reforms Act provides for rights of Mortgagor and Mortgagee. An application for deposit of mortgage amount lies before Revenue Assistant and not before Civil Court, as per Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act (Section I).
7. The plaintiffs have described the property as agricultural land. This description is given by giving Khasra numbers and Khatouni. Counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon mutation of year 1982 to claim that plaintiffs were in uninterrupted possession of the property. This reliance by the plaintiffs on a document of 1982, before the Sale deed was executed, is a dishonest effort on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs very well know and have also pleaded that the mutation had been carried out by the Revenue Authorities in favor of the defendants in the year 1986. The plaintiffs could not have relied upon a document of 1982. The question of uninterrupted possession by the plaintiffs to the exclusion by its truthful owners is belied by the sale deed itself. The sale deed executed on 17th June, 1982, by Harpal Singh categorically mentions that he had delivered physical possession of the land to the vendee on the spot. When there is a documentary proof of handing over of the possession on 17th June, 1982 at the time of execution of the sale deed, no amount of oral averment can be considered by the Court that the possession remained with the plaintiffs. In the year 1986, the mutation of the property was done in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Madan Lal. Mutation in the revenue record is a record of possession of the land. It is done after due notice to the earlier recorded owner of the land and after verification on the spot by the Revenue Authorities. It is settled law that Court has to presume that all official Acts have been performed in due course and in accordance with the procedure laid down. There is no presumption that official acts were performed contrary to the law. Thus, recording of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Madan Lal as the persons in possession and their names in Khasra Girdawari after entertaining their mutation applications shows that the defendants continued in possession of the property from 1982 onwards and got the property mutated in their names in Revenue record as well. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in year 2000, after death of Harpal Singh, they approached Revenue Authority for mutation of the land in their names and they were told that the property stands mutated in the names of the defendants and Shri Madan Lal, since 1986. It does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to claim that they were in possession right through 1982, neither the Court can consider any such plea. Possession of agricultural land goes with title and the Revenue Records. Revenue Records are prepared in respect of the agricultural land on the basis of physical verification by Patwari. If one is aggrieved by the entries in Revenue record, the remedy is provided under Delhi Land Reforms Act for correction of record, for regaining possession, for ejectment of transferre etc. The Civil Court is not only barred from entertaining such claims, but is bound to honour the revenue records as correct. Any amount of oral pleadings cannot be considered by Civil Court in respect of possession over the agricultural land, contrary to record. If this is allowed, anybody can fabricate evidence in respect of his possession, create some witnesses and file a civil suit in a Civil Court. It is for this reason that law has specifically barred filing of civil suits in respect of agricultural land and has provided an elaborate procedure under revenue laws and only Revenue Authorities have been given power to decide the issues in respect of the agricultural land. Section 79 of Delhi Land Revenue Act gives power to the Revenue Assistant to order alterations in the annual register and to enquire into and decide cases of reported transfers. Section 27(3) provides that in the course of an enquiry into a dispute regarding possession if Tehsildar is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, he has to ascertain the same by summary enquiry and after ascertaining this he has to put such person in possession. Section 64 provides that in case any of the party was not satisfied with the order passed by Revenue Assistant, Assistant Collector or Tehsildar then appeal lies to different Revenue Authorities. There is provision for first appeal and second appeal. Thus, this Court cannot consider the issue of possession of the agricultural land raised by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have to approach only Revenue Authorities to establish their possession over the property and not the Civil Court.
8. After filing this suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for Local commissioner and this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to go to the spot. Local Commissioner gave a report that a carpentry shop was being run by the plaintiffs on the suit property. He has also filed photographs of the place. A perusal of these photographs would show a temporary tin shed using back wall of neighbour was there and on the wall ‘carpentry shop’ was written. Two carpenters were shown working there. This kind of possession in respect of agricultural land cannot be considered by the Court. Whenever a holding is sought to be used for industrial purpose, an application is to be made for change of land use under Section 23 of Delhi Land Reforms Act to Deputy Commissioner, who has authority to sanction such land use. The plaintiffs cannot claim adverse possession on a vacant land by erecting a shed, putting some wooden planks and getting some carpenters to work on a day and say it was a carpentry shop being run. No record of carpentry shop has been placed on record, since when this carpentry shop was running, who sanctioned it, what were the orders placed on the carpentry shop. No invoices showing who placed the order, what were the orders for and what was the value of the orders have been placed on record. Such sets as existed at the time of visit of local commissioner can be created or got created in no time. On the basis of creation of such sets, the Court cannot decide the possession of agricultural land, neither can entertain claim of adverse possession of agricultural land.
9. I find that this suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such.
The suit as well as the applications stand disposed of.