Nilima Gupta, Vs. Yogesh Saroha and ors. - Court Judgment

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts were demarcated and matter was taken up with Chief Town Planner, MCD, for approval of lay out plan of the Society. The members of the Society, including the petitioners, were allotted different plots. The case of the petitioners was that they were illegally dispossessed from their plots by Defendant No. 1 & 2 (Respondents No. 1&2 herein) without due process of law and hence they filed a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act within six months of the dispossession reclaiming the possession. Defendant No. 1 & 2 raised objection about the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court and pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court relying upon Supreme Court judgment in Hatti v. Sunder Singh : [1971]2SCR163 and judgment of this Court in Ram Karan and Ors. v. Jagdeep Rai & Sons : 79(1999)DLT305 held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act would be applicable in this case and the suit before Civil Court was not maintainable.

3. In Hatti's case (supra) Supreme Court has observed that if a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his rights, he has to approach the Revenue Assistant by an application under item 4 and if a Gaon Sabha wants a clarification in respect of any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land, it can institute a suit for declaration under item 28, and the Revenue Assistant can make a declaration of the right of such person. So far as suits for possession are concerned Section 84 read with Item No. 19 of First Schedule gives the jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession and that the suit for possession in respect of agricultural land, after the commencement of the Act can only be instituted either by a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha. This Court in Ram Karan's case (supra) following the supreme Court's judgment in Hatti's case (supra) had observed that plaintiffs in that suit had claimed right as a Bhumidar which right was denied by the defendant on the ground that plaintiffs had sold out their rights in the suit land. The Court observed that rights, if any, of the plaintiffs in respect of suit land were under cloud and the plaintiffs were seeking declaration of their rights as a Bhumidar and also seeking for a declaration of their possession in respect of suit land. This was apparently a dispute as to possession of the agricultural land and therefore such a dispute as to possession of agricultural land could be effectively adjudicated upon and decided under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. This Court therefore rejected the suit.

4. A preamble to The Delhi Land Reforms Act shows that The Delhi Land Reforms Act was enacted for the modification of zamindari system so as to create a uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries and for the unification of the existing tenancy laws. All provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act would show that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was primarily enacted for agricultural land. Section 3 subsection 13 defines 'land' and reads as under:

(13) 'land' except in Sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes:

(a) buildings appurtenant thereto,

(b) village abadis,

(c) grovelands,

(d) lands for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation,

but does not include:land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent to Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may be a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto;

5. A perusal of above definition of land makes it clear that the land within the Delhi Land Reforms Act primarily is the land which is occupied for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture and poultry farming. If there is building appurtenant to the land, it is for incidental use. The primary use of the land as per the definition has to be as stated viz. agricultural etc. This fact is made further clear from Section 2(12) where 'improvement' is defined and definition of 'improvement' also shows that the land involved has to be primarily agricultural land. Other definitions like definition of 'agriculture year', 'economic holding', 'Bhumidar or Asami', tenants' etc. make it abundantly clear that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was made for the purpose of governing the land which was under agriculture use. The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court and giving jurisdiction to Revenue Court was provided under the Act because Revenue Authorities maintain all records of agricultural land and khasra/godawari is usually prepared by revenue authorities showing what was being sowed in the land and to what use the land was being put, who was the Asami/tenant in the land? The revenue authorities are having duty of administering the agricultural land and maintaining the record of Asami/Bhumidar/tenants etc. including the record of the use to which the land was being put viz. agriculture, pisciculture, poultry farming etc. etc (all use as defined in the Act). The Delhi Land Reforms Act was not meant to decide the Civil Disputes of unauthorized colonies, which emerged on agricultural land. The hard realty of today is that though large chunks of land stand in the revenue record as 'khasra numbers' but in fact the land has been converted into unauthorized/authorized colonies, where people have either built houses or have plots and civil disputes are arising day in and day out in respect of these plots. Sometimes, plots are sold twice, sometimes there are disputes regarding possession of plots, sometimes there are disputes regarding encroachment, sometimes there are disputes regarding invalid/valid sale of the plots. The Legislature while framing the Delhi Land Reforms Act had not envisaged these kinds of disputes to be referred to the Revenue Authorities. A perusal of chart given in Schedule I pertaining to Section 185 itself shows that all disputes which are envisaged by the Delhi Land Reforms Act to be decided by the Revenue Assistant or Deputy Commissioner are those, which pertain to agricultural land and they are not those disputes which arise when agricultural land is converted into unauthorized colonies or authorized colonies. The Courts cannot be divorced from the ground realities and live in an imaginary world of jurisdiction. Once the agricultural land loses its basic character of 'agricultural land' and changes hands several times and gets converted into an authorized/unauthorized colony by dividing it into plots, the disputes of plot-holders are not those, which can be decided by the Revenue Authorities and these disputes have to be decided by the Civil Courts.

6. The law which the learned ADJ followed for holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction is a good law but it is in respect of agricultural land only. Neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court's judgment states that the disputes of plot-holders in unauthorized colonies are to be decided by the Revenue Authorities merely because the land is also identified by way of khasra number apart from plot number. In most of the unauthorized colonies, when land is sold by cutting into plots, each plot is shown as a part of some khasra number, but later on separate house numbers and plot numbers are given and khasra number disappears.

7. I consider that dispute in this case was such that Civil Court would have jurisdiction. The petitions are hereby allowed. The Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suits of the plaintiffs/petitioners under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The matters are remanded back to the Court of District Judge having jurisdiction for assigning/disposal as per law. Parties to appear before the District Judge on 12th January, 2009.