Bishnoo And Ors. vs Gaon Sabha, Soongarpur And Ors. on 3 December, 1985

0
70
Delhi High Court
Bishnoo And Ors. vs Gaon Sabha, Soongarpur And Ors. on 3 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: 29 (1986) DLT 145, 1986 (10) DRJ 142
Author: Y Dayal
Bench: Y Dayal


JUDGMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

(1) This order will dispose of CM(M) 256/85 & CM(M) Nos. 267 to 273 of 1985.

(2) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution it directed against an order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, dated 23rd July, 1985 whereby the learned Financial Commissioner Delhi vacated an order dated 23rd March, 1985 passed by Revenue Assistant directing status quo to be maintained during pendency of a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11(l)(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

(3) An order for eviction was passed against the petitioners under Section 86(a) of the aforesaid Act on 12th December, 1980. The petitioners are alleged by the respondents to have been dispossessed on 8th May, 1984 Petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 12th December, 1980 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on 23rd July, 1984.

(4) On 28th August, 1984, petitioners filed an application under Section 11(a)(a) of the aforesaid Act for being declared Bhumidhar for the first time. Delhi Land Reforms Act had come into force practically about 30 years back, yet no application was filed for being declared Bhumidhar. In the revenue records the land had been mutated as having vested in the Gaon Sabha being Banjar.

(5) Along with the application for declaration of Bhumidhari rights petitioners applied under Section 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the revenue authorities from dispossessing the petitioners and ex-parte ad-interim order was passed for directing the maintenance of status quo. This order was passed on 12th September, 1984 ex-parte and the Gaon Sabha applied on 5th October, 1984 for setting aside this order. Both the applications filed by petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1&2 of the Code and one filed by Gaon Sabha for vacation of that order were decided by one order of Revenue Assistant. The Revenue Assistant on 23rd March, 1985 confirmed the ex-parte order. Against this order of the Revenue Assistant, the Gaon Sabha, Soongarpur filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner on 26th March, 1985. By the impugned order Financial Commissioner, Delhi accepted the appeal and dismissed the application of the petitioners for interim relief during pendency of proceedings under Section 11(a)(a) of the aforesaid Act.

(6) Normally, these are interlocutory matters totally within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals and this Court does not really 144 interfere with such orders unless some grave injustice occurred by ignoring some material documents or on other substantial grounds. Even under Section 115 of the Code this Court does not interfere with these types of matters except in the case of grave illegality or infirmity in exercise of the Jurisdiction. It will be noticed that even in the Khatauni of the year 1951-52, the land is described as Banjar. Right till 19SO when eviction order was passed against the petitioners, it was not recorded in their names. Portion is that is per revenue records right from 195152 till 1980 the land is shown as BanJar and in view of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, this land got vested in the Gaon Sabha. It is apparent that they occupied the land somewhere in 1980, that is why the proceedings were filed with the result that order for eviction was passed on 12th December, 1980 and even the revision against that order was dismissed on 16th July, 1984. It is, thereafter that the present proceedings were initiated by a petition under Section 11(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act. No revenue records have been placed before the Revenue Assistant or before the Financial Commissioner which may prima-facie support the case of the petitioners for grant of Bhumidhari rights to the petitioners. It was in these circumstances, learned Financial Commissioner has vacated the order.

(7) It will be noticed that the Delhi Land Reforms Act contemplates Bhumidhari rights being granted to actual tillers of the land who are shown in cultivated possession during the year 1953-54 eater by himself or by servants or hired labour at the commencement of the Act or at any time during the period of five years immediately before the commencement of the Act, whether or not, it was so cultivated at such commencement, provided that it has not, at any time after having been so cultivated, been let.out to a tenant

(8) Since the land was shown as Banjar, there is no question of their being in cultivatory possession and it will be noticed that for the first time practically after 30 years, this application was filed under Section 111(l)(a) of the aforesaid Act

(9) The purpose of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was to protect the persons who were in actual cultivatory possession of the land on spot. The purpose of the Act was further to vest the remaining unused and bun jar land in the Gaon Sabha so as the Gaon Sabha may further distribute it to the landless persons .and in that way the purpose of the Act was to end the exploitation of the landless, workers of the land, labourers and also of the poor and petty cultivators from the clutches of the big Zamindars/Proprietors of the land. All the proprietary rights in any land including the shamlat deh came to an end on account of the provisions of this Act. The petitioners, prima-facie, are merely trying to grab the land in question after having been prima-facie dispossessed in May, 1984. It is also clear from the report dated 7th May, 1985 that the crop was not more than a month old and this even was the plea of the Gaon Sabha. After they were actually dispossessed in May. 1984, the petitioners cannot clandestinely go for the possession and are trying to obtain the possession under the garb of the orders of the maintenance of the status quo and having obtained possession are now trying to claim protection of their possession.

(10) On the facts of the case, it is not at all a fit case for this Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or to interfere with the impugned order. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that there is no crop on the land in dispute as of today. The show cause notice issued is, therefore, discharged.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *