Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3828 OF 2017
MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS
AND ANOTHER ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
nd
dated 22 November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Delhi holding that once the rural area is urbanized by
issuance of a notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957(hereinafter being referred to as the
“Act 1957”), it ceases to be governed by the provisions of the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act
Digitally signed by
Ashwani Kumar
Date: 2023.03.14
15:55:35 IST
Reason:
1954”) in sequel thereto and held that the proceedings under Act,
1
1954 were non est leaving the parties to agitate their
claims/disputes before appropriate fora clarifying that all pleas in
law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriate
forum.
2. The facts in seriatim as manifest from the record are that one
Maman Singh who was a recorded Bhumidhar of the land
admeasuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 M in village
Samepur, Delhi as alleged, sold the land to one Bhai Ram vide
th
registered sale deed dated 9 March, 1970. The respondents
Narain Singh and Som Dutt have purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas
and 2 Bighas respectively from Shri Maman Singh by a registered
th
sale deed dated 4 May, 1989. Later, they applied for mutation
st
under Act, 1954 and their names were mutated on 31 May, 1989.
3. It has been pleaded by the appellants that before the
th
registered sale deed dated 4 May, 1989 came to be executed by
Maman Singh in favour of the respondents herein and their names
st
were mutated on 31 May, 1989, the appellants had come into
possession over the subject land. The appellants later challenged
st
the mutation order dated 31 May, 1989 opened in favour of the
2
respondents claiming adverse possession by filing appeal under
Section 64 of the Act 1954. After certain rounds of litigation, the
Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation passed in
th
favour of the respondents by Order dated 10 February, 1995
holding that the transfer was in contravention of Section 33 of the
Act, 1954 and further ordered the land in dispute to be vested in
Gaon Sabha.
4. It is relevant to mention that the Order of the Financial
th
Commissioner dated 10 February, 1995 wherein it was observed
“land in dispute ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha” was never
challenged by the appellants whereas the respondents challenged
th
the Order dated 10 February, 1995 by filing Writ Petition(civil) No.
670 of 1995 before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
th
which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 14 July, 2008 and
that became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the
respondents assailing in LPA No. 591 of 2008.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court returned a finding that
rd
once the notification dated 23 April, 1982 has been published in
exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 which
3
expressly urbanizes the subject land in question and brings within
the scope and ambit of Act, 1957, it no more remains rural area
thus, all proceedings under the Act, 1954 stand non est leaving the
parties to agitate their claims/disputes before appropriate fora with
a clarification that all the pleas in law shall remain available to the
parties before the appropriate fora which may be adopted for
nd
redressal of grievance under judgment impugned dated 22
November, 2012 which is a subject matter of challenge in appeal
before us.
6. In this context, it may be noticed that respondents Narain
Singh and Som Dutt had filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction
along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction. The matter
at the stage of temporary jurisdiction travelled to this Court in a
special leave petition filed at the instance of respondents which was
rd
dismissed by Order dated 23 January, 1992 with a direction to the
revenue authorities to decide the matter in four months.
nd
Subsequently, by order dated 2 September, 1992, this Court
directed the concerned SHO to hand over possession to the
4
appellants herein and pursuant to Order of this Court, the
appellants are in possession of the subject land in question.
7. The main thrust of submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
senior counsel for the appellants is that apart from the order
nd
passed by this Court dated 2 September, 1992 to hand over
possession of the subject land to the appellants, it can further be
supported from the notice issued under Section 81 by SDM to the
th
present appellants dated 18 January, 1984 which indicates that
the appellants are in possession.
8. Learned counsel further submits that once Maman Singh had
th
sold the land by registered sale deed in favour of Bhai Ram on 9
March, 1970 and handed over possession thereof, he (Maman
Singh) had no right, title and interest to execute the successive sale
deed and he could not hand over possession to the respondents of
the subject land. That apart, the possession handed over to the
appellants has been upheld.
9. Learned counsel further submits that after taking holistic view
of the Act, 1954 and of Act 1957, even after declaration of
urbanization by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the
5
Act 1957, it will not cease the right of the parties inter se conferred
under provisions of the Act 1954. There is no provision under the
Act, 1957 which may suggest issuance of the notification of
urbanizing under Section 507(a) of the Act ceases automatically the
provisions of the Act 1954. That apart, Section 150(3) of the Act,
1954 specifically provides for the consequences when whole of Gaon
Sabha cease to be a rural area by virtue of Section 507 of the Act,
1957. The consequence of dissolution of Gaon Sabha and sub
clause (e) of Section 150(3) specifically says that the provisions of
this Act, 1954 shall apply.
10. Learned counsel submits that the Act, 1954 is one such law
which is a special Act relating to land reforms by virtue of Section
1(2) which extends to the whole of the UT of Delhi. The area
covered under Act, 1957 is not so excluded. It creates rights of
tenure holders and Bhumidhar within the ambit of Section 5 and
such rights can be acquired in various ways. Under Chapter III,
Section C relates to user of land and Section D pertains to transfer
of land by Bhumidhar and Section E pertains to devolution and
6
Section F pertains to partition. Thus, Act, 1954 is a special code
pertaining to the rights of Bhumidhar and other tenure holders.
11. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the Act, 1957
is concerned, it is the Act which deals with Delhi Municipal
Corporation. There is nothing in the Act, 1957 to suggest that it
purports to regulate the tenure of Bhumidhar in the UT of Delhi
after the urbanization of area is notified. Since the purport of Act,
1957 is not to govern the holding of the tenure, it has been
specifically provided by Section 502 that other laws are not to be
disregarded for the time being in force.
12. In substance, learned counsel submits that Act, 1954
continues to operate even after urbanization under Section 507(a) of
the Act, 1957 and further submits that the finding returned by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not
legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in
Om Prakash Agarwal and
1
Others Vs. Batara Behera and Others .
1 1999(3) SCC 231
7
13. Learned counsel further submits that the Division Bench of
the High Court has not taken note of the earlier view expressed by
the Division Bench of the High Court in Vs.
Umed Singh Govt. of
2
NCT of Delhi and Others and that the earlier Division Bench of
the High Court also considered the scheme of Act, 1957 and Act,
1954 and has returned a finding that on issuance of notification
under Section 507(a) of the Act 1957, it may not cease the rights of
the parties inter se existing under the Act, 1954 and, in the given
circumstances, judgment needs to be interfered with by this Court.
14. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, submits that the respondents Narain Singh and Som
Dutt purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from
th
the Bhumidhar Maman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4
May, 1989. So far as the right, title and interest on the subject
property is concerned, it vested in favour of the respondents. The
th
registered sale deed dated 4 May, 1989 has never been questioned
by Bhai Ram who could be said to be the person aggrieved by the
subsequent sale transaction as has been alleged by the appellants.
2 1997 SCCOnline Del 842
8
Even the right claimed by the appellants of adverse possession is a
weak right and not legally sustainable. In this regard, the civil suit
which has been filed at their instance is practically a nonstarter
because of pendency of the present appeal still the appellants have
no right, title and interest over the subject property in question.
15. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the scheme of
the Act, 1954 and of Act, 1957, while harmonizing, both are
governed in different fields and once the notification has been
published under Section 507(a) declaring the land to be urbanized,
which in the instant case is not disputed, the mutation proceedings
pending under the Act, 1954 stand ceased as the land does not
exist to be rural area and, thus, no error has been committed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in returning a finding that all
mutation proceedings stand ceased after the publication of the
notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957.
16. Learned counsel further submits that this is the consistent
view of the Delhi High Court and apart from the judgment
impugned, this very question and effect of issuance of the
notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 was earlier
9
examined by the High Court in Smt. Indu Khorana Vs. Gram
3 th
which was decided on 26 March, 2010 and
Sabha and Others
after examining the scheme of Act, 1954 and Act, 1957, it was held
that once the rural area is declared to be urbanized by issuance of
notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, provisions of the
Act, 1954 cease to apply.
17. Learned counsel further submits that after the matter being
examined by the Division Bench of the High Court by two different
Benches, this being consistently followed in the later judgments by
the High Court of Delhi and unless this Court comes to the
conclusion that interpretation as exposed of the Act, 1954 and Act,
1957 are completely perverse and unsustainable, ordinarily may
not be interfered with by this Court.
18. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the present
respondents are concerned, despite holding right, title and interest
in the subject land in question, pursuant to the registered sale deed
th
dated 4 May, 1989, and their name being mutated at one stage on
st
31 May, 1989, in the given circumstances, at least appellants have
no legal right to hold possession of the subject land although the
3 2010 SCCOnline DEL 1334
10
suit has been filed at the instance of the respondents and submits
that this Court may consider to restore possession in favour of the
respondents to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the interest of
justice.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
20. The factual matrix which has come on record is not disputed
between the parties. The question of law that raised for
consideration is that once the rural area is urbanized by issuance of
notification under the Act 1957, what will be the effect to the
provisions of the Act, 1954 in sequel thereto.
21. We would like to take a bird’s eye view of the relevant
provision of the Acts to examine the question raised for our
consideration.
22. The Act, 1954 was enacted with an object to create a uniform
body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries, for the
unification of the tenancy laws in force in Delhi and to make
provisions for other matters connected therewith.
11
23. Section 1(2) of the Act, 1954 extends to the whole Union
Territory of Delhi, but shall not apply to the areas notified in
Section 1(2)(a) of the Act, 1954, i.e. such an area which are or may
before the first day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality
or a notified area under the relevant Acts.
24. It may be apposite to take note of the relevant provisions of the
Act before we appreciate the effect and ambit of Act, 1954 which are
as follows:
“1. (I) This Act may be called the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
(2) It extends to the whole of the Union territory of Delhi, but shall
not apply to
(a) the areas which are or may before the first day
of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality or a
Notified Area under the provisions of the Punjab
Municipal Act 1911, or a Cantonment under the
provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924,
3. Definitions. In this Act, unless the Context otherwise requires
(1) to (4)…..
''(5) "Delhi town" means the areas which immediately before the
establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were included
in the limits of Delhi Municipality, Civil Station Notified Area, West
Delhi Municipality and the Fort Notified Area;
(6) to (12)….
(l3) "land" except in sections 23 and 24, means land held or
occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or
12
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 buildings in belts of areas adjacent
to Dehi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by a
notification in the Official Gazette declare as an
acquisition thereto;
150. (1) & (2)….
(3) If the whole of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural
areas as defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, by
virtue of a notification under section 507 of that Act, the Gaon
Sabha constituted for that area shall thereupon stand dissolved
and on such dissolution,
(a) all properties, movable and immovable, and all
interests of whatsoever nature and kind therein
including moneys held in Area Fund,
Gaon Sabha
vested in the Gaon Sabha immediately before such
dissolution, shall, with all rights of whatsoever
description, used, enjoyed or possessed by Gaon
Sabha , vest in the Central Government;
(b) all duties, obligations and liabilities incurred, all
contracts entered into and all matters and things
engaged to be done by, with or for the Gaon Sabha
before such dissolution shall be deemed to have been
incurred, entered into or engaged to be done with or
for the Central Government;
(c) all rates, taxes, fees, rents and other charges due to
the Gaon Sabha immediately before such dissolution
shall be deemed to be due to the Central Government;
13
(d) all suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings
instituted or which might have been instituted by or
against the Gaon Sabha may be continued or
instituted by or against the Union of India;
(e) the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to
lands in such Gaon Sabha area, not being lands vested
in the Central Government clause (a), subject to the
modification that references therein to Gaon Sabha
and Gaon Panchayat shall be construed as references
to the Central Government;
(f) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of
subsection (2) of section 1, the provisions of sections
84, 85, 86A and 87 and any other provision of this Act
relating to ejectment of persons shall apply in relation
to lands vested in the Central Government under
clause (a) subject to the modification that references
therein to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayat shall be
construed as references to the Central Government.
(4) If only a portion of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in
rural areas as aforesaid the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha
constituted for that area shall cease in respect of that portion and
upon such cesser, the provisions of clause (a) to (f) of subsection
(3) shall apply to that portion as if the Gaon Sabha had been
constituted for that portion alone and dissolved, subject to such
incidental and consequential orders as the Chief Commissioner
may deem necessary to make.
(5) If the size of a Gaon Sabha Area is reduced as a result of a
portion thereof ceasing to be included in rural areas as aforesaid
and the Chief Commissioner is of the opinion that the size of the
Gaon Sabha area is not sufficiently large to be under the
jurisdiction of a separate Gaon Sabha, he may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, declare that such Gaon Sabha area shall, from
a date to be specified in the notification, cease to be a separate
Gaon Sabha area and the Gaon Sabha constituted there for shall
stand dissolved and may direct that the said area shall be included
in one or more adjoining Gaon Sabha areas, and thereupon the
provisions of section 3 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 (Delhi
Act 3 of 1955), shall, so far as may be, apply.”
14
25. The combined reading of the relevant provisions referred to
hereinabove clearly indicates that the Act, 1954 will not cover such
area as defined in the first instance which may or before the first
day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality. The ‘land’
which has been defined under Section 3(13) provides that except in
sections 23 and 24, such of the land held or occupied for purpose
connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry
including pisciculture and poultry farming and further includes
other categories which are part of land but at the same time, it does
not include land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent to
Delhi town.
26. ‘Delhi town’ has been defined under Section 3(5) of the Act
which clearly defines that areas which immediately before the
establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were included
in the limits of Delhi Municipality. There is complete exclusion of
the land occupied by buildings adjacent to Delhi town which falls
before the establishment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is
not a land covered for the purpose by deciding rights of the parties
under tenure holder under Chapter II of the Act, 1954.
15
27. At the same time, Section 150(3), (4) and (5) of the Act indicate
that if the Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as
defined in the Act, 1957 by virtue of notification under Section 507
of the Act, the Gaon Sabha shall thereupon stand dissolved or if a
portion of Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as
aforesaid, the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha for that area ceases in
respect of that portion and for that portion stands dissolved or to
that extent, the size of the Gaon Sabha stands reduced as a result
of a portion ceasing to be included in rural area as aforesaid.
28. Let us take a view of relevant provisions of Act, 1957 for the
present purpose which are as under:
“2(52) "rural areas" means the areas of Delhi which immediately
before the establishment of a Corporation are situated within the
local limits of the District Board of Delhi established under the
Punjab District Boards Act, 1883 (Punjab Act 20 of 1883), but
shall not include such portion thereof as may, by virtue of a
notification under section 507, cease to be included in the rural
areas as herein defined;
2(61) "urban areas" means the areas of Delhi which are not rural
areas;
502. Other laws not to be disregarded— Save as provided in this
Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as
authorising the disregard by a Corporation or any municipal
authority or any municipal officer or other municipal employee of
any law for the time being in force.
16
507. Special provisions as to rural areas.— Notwithstanding
anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act,—
(a) a Corporation with the previous approval of the
Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare that any portion of the rural areas shall cease to be
included therein and upon the issue of such notification
that portion shall be included in and form part of the
urban areas;
(b) a Corporation with the previous approval of the
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,—
(i) exempt the rural areas or any portion thereof from
such of the provisions of this Act as it deems fit,
(ii) levy taxes, rates, fees and other charges in the rural
areas or any portion thereof at rates lower than
those at which such taxes, rates, fees and other
charges are levied in the urban areas or exempt
such areas or portion from any such tax, rate, fee or
other charge.”
(c) a Corporation shall pay a Gaon Sabha
(i) an amount equal to the proceeds of the tax on
profession, trades, callings and employments, as
and when that tax is levied in the Gaon Sabha
area, and
(ii) an amount equal to such portion of the proceeds
of the property taxes on lands and buildings in that
area as may from time to time be determined by a
Corporation, after deducting the cost of collection
from such proceeds.
29. The Act, 1957 has been primarily enacted to have a uniform
body to administer the Delhi Municipal Corporation to consolidate
various bodies, local authorities, looking after the municipal affairs
and to centralise for better administration and to overcome the
17
problems being faced by various authorities as well as by the
public.
30. Section 2(52) defines the ‘rural areas’ which demonstrates that
the area of Delhi which immediately before the establishment of a
Corporation, falls within the local limits of the District Board of
Delhi, be considered to be the rural area but that shall not include
such portion thereof which by virtue of notification under Section
507 declared to be urbanized and it ceases to be included under the
term ‘rural areas’ and Section 2(61) defines ‘urban areas’ as the
areas of Delhi which are not rural areas.
31. To simplify it further, once there is a notification issued by the
competent authority in exercise of power under Section 507(a)
which is a special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the
rural areas cease to be included therein upon issuance of the
notification and shall thereafter include in and form part of the
urban areas in terms of the notification. Subclause (b) and (c ) of
Section 507 deals with the nature of grant of exemption or levy of
taxes for such of the areas falling within the scope and ambit of the
Act, 1957.
18
32. At the same time, Section 502 on which the learned counsel
for the appellants has given more emphasis, it only provides that
this Act(Act 1957) shall not be construed authorizing disregard to
any law for the time being in force and rightly so for the reason,
that scope and ambit of the Act, 1954, in no manner, has to be
disregarded by the provisions of the Act, 1957.
33. At this stage, if we look into the Delhi Development Act,
1957(hereinafter being referred to as the “DDA Act”), it nowhere
makes a distinction in the nature of land whether it is rural or
urban, as the case may be. The DDA Act, 1957 is enacted with an
object of development of Delhi according to sanctioned plan and for
matters ancillary thereto. If we consider the term ‘development’ as
defined under Section 2(e) of the DDA Act, it clearly notifies that
such of the area which has been declared to be a development area
under Section 12, after publication in the official gazette, shall be
considered a development area within the purport of the Act and it
is a complete code in itself for the purpose of disposal of land. The
expression ‘land’ in Section 2(l) is in reference to the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
19
34. Relevant Sections of Act, 1957 are reproduced hereunder:
“2(e) “development area” means any area declared to be a
development area under subsection (1) of section 12;
2(l) the expression “land” shall have the meaning assigned to it in
section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. Declaration of development areas and development of land in
those and other areas.—
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare any area in Delhi to be a development area for the
purposes of this Act:
Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless a
proposal for such declaration has been referred by the Central
Government to the Authority and the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi for expressing their views thereon within thirty days from the
date of the receipt of the reference or within such further period as
the Central Government may allow and the period so specified or
allowed has expired.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not
undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which
is not a development area.
(3) After the commencement of this Act no development of land
shall be undertaken or carried out in any area by any person or
body (including a department of Government) unless,—
(i) where that area is a development area, permission for such
development has been obtained in writing from the Authority
in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(ii) where that area is an area other than a development area,
approval of, or sanction for, such development has been
obtained in writing from the local authority concerned or any
officer or authority thereof empowered or authorised in this
behalf, in accordance with the provisions made by or under
the law governing such authority or until such provisions
have been made, in accordance with the provisions of the
regulations relating to the grant of permission for
20
development made under the Delhi (Control of Building
Operations) Act, 1955 (53 of 1955), and in force immediately
before the commencement of this Act:
Provided that the local authority concerned may
[subject to the provisions of section 53A] amend those
regulations in their application to such area.
(4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area
no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area
unless such development is also in accordance with such plans.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (3) and (4)
development of any land begun by any department of Government
or any local authority before the commencement of this Act may be
completed by that department or local authority without
compliance with the requirements of those subsections.”
35. So far as the DDA Act is concerned, it is only for the purpose
of development of Delhi according to the sanctioned master plan
and zonal development plan notified under Section 7 of the Act and
for matters ancillary thereto regardless of fact whether it is a rural
area or urbanized which is for different purposes covered by the
provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957.
36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act
1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has
been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act,
1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel
21
thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non
est and loses its legal significance.
37. We approve the view expressed by the Division Bench of the
High Court in (supra) which was later followed
Smt. Indu Khorana
in the judgment impugned by the Division Bench of the High Court
nd
dated 22 November, 2012.
38. So far as the judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Agarwal
(supra) on which learned counsel for the appellants has
& Others
placed reliance is concerned, in the first instance, there was no
such notification under the relevant laws which declared the land to
be urbanized as published in the instant case under Section 507(a)
of the Act, 1957 and the objection raised by the learned counsel
was in reference to the scope and ambit of the Orissa Land Reforms
Act, 1960 and the question was whether the reforms Act has any
application to the land which is a part of the master plan of the city
under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. In that
reference, the observations were made by this Court as to what
extent the provisions of the reforms Act will apply in reference to
agricultural or other purposes. This Court was very conscious that
22
no notification had been published in the case on hand which
reserved for urbanization within the scope and ambit of Section
73(c) of the Orrisa Land Reforms Act, 1960 which, in our view, may
not be of any assistance to the appellants.
39. So far as the submission made in reference to the earlier
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi which
has not been looked into by the Division Bench under the impugned
judgment in the case of Umed Singh (supra) is concerned, on
principle, we are not in agreement with the view expressed by the
High Court in Umed Singh (supra), at the same time, we would like
to observe that the case was in reference to consolidation
th
notification issued on 8 September, 1993, and what will be the
effect of Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948,
in that reference, the High Court examined the scope and ambit of
the Act, 1957.
40. Before we conclude, we may like to observe that the
respondents purchased the subject land from Maman Singh
th
(recorded Bhumidhar) by a registered sale deed dated 4 May, 1989
st
and mutation also, at one time, was opened in their names on 31
23
May, 1989. Later, they were compelled to file a civil suit in the year
1990 for taking over possession of the subject property in question.
41. It reveals from the record that after a few rounds of litigation,
the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation by
th
Order dated 10 February, 1995, the matter later travelled to the
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and by judgment dated
nd
22 November, 2012, it was held that once the rural area is
urbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the
Act, 1957, it ceases to be governed by the provisions of Act, 1954.
42. What persuaded this Court is that even after upholding the
nd
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 22
November, 2012, it gives a fresh life to the respondents to go ahead
in taking possession of the subject property despite the fact that
th
registered sale deed dated 4 May, 1989 was executed in their
favour by Maman Singh(Bhumidhar) but they are still deprived of
possession and the defence of the appellants in counter is that they
are in possession of the subject land by adverse possession. At the
same time, this Court may also record that the registered sale deed
th
dated 4 May, 1989 executed in favour of the respondents by
24
Maman Singh (Bhumidhar) was never the subject matter of
challenge and no such proceedings are pending in the Court of law.
43. At this point of time, it reminds us that the civil suit filed at
the instance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject
land which is pending for the last 32 years has not started its
journey as yet and this is called the travesty of injustice to a person
who is indisputedly the title holder still unable to enjoy the
property.
44. In the given facts and circumstances, in exercise of our power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and to do complete justice to
the parties, we direct the appellants to hand over physical
possession of the subject land free from all encumbrances to the
respondents within a period of two months from the date of passing
of this Order. If the appellants fail to hand over possession within
the time stipulated, it will be open to the respondents to make an
application to the concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and
after obtaining necessary orders with assistance of the local
administration may proceed for taking possession of the subject
land. It goes without saying that the possession has to be handed
25
th
over in terms of the registered sale deed dated 4 May, 1989 which
has been executed by Maman Singh (Bhumidhar) in the names of
the respective respondents.
45. The pending civil suit in the above terms stands disposed of.
46. We find no substance in the instant appeal. The same is
hereby dismissed with the observations aforestated. No costs.
47. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
……………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELH;
MARCH 14, 2023
26