Delhi Land Reforms Act Not Applicable Once An Area Is Urbanised Under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently affirmed a Delhi High Court judgement which stated that once a rural area is urbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, it ceases to be governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi, CT Ravikumar and Bela M Trivedi observed this, “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”.Factual BackgroundMaman Singh who was a recorded Bhumidhar of the land admeasuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra, Samepur, Delhi sold the land to one Bhai Ram via a registered sale deed dated March 9, 1970. The Respondents, Narain Singh and Som Dutt purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from Singh on May 4, 1989. Later, they applied for mutation under Act, 1954 and their names were mutated on May 31, 1989. The appellants pleaded that before the 1989 registered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the Respondents, they had come into possession over the subject land. The appellants later challenged the mutation order opened in favour of the 2 respondents claiming adverse possession by filing appeal under Section 64 of the 1954 Act. After certain rounds of litigation, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of the Respondents by Order dated February 10, 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. The order had observed that “land in dispute ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha” was never challenged by the Appellants. The Respondents challenged the order which came to be dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court returned a finding that once the notification dated April 23, 1982 has been published under Section 507(a) of the 1957 Act which expressly urbanizes the subject land in question and brings within the scope and ambit of Act; it no more remains rural area thus, all proceedings under the 1954 Act 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 . Aggrieved, the appellants moved the Apex Court.Supreme Court's analysisAfter going through the facts and arguments, the Bench thought it appropriate to go through the scope of the 1954 as well as the 1957 Acts. The 1954 Act 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 therewithThe Act, 1957 was 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 problems being faced by various authorities as well as by the public, the court noted. “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”, the court further stated in it order. The Court viewed that even after upholding the Division Bench’s judgment, it gives a fresh life to the Respondents to go ahead in taking possession of the subject property despite the fact that registered sale deed was executed in their favour. But, they are still deprived of possession and the appellants’ defence is that they are in possession of the subject land by adverse possession. At the same time, the registered sale deed executed in favour of the Respondents was never the subject matter of challenge and no such proceedings are pending in the Court of law, the court noted. “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...

Delhi Land Reforms Act Not Applicable Once An Area Is Urbanised Under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act : Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags