2021:DHC:3890

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th November, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 12038/2019, CM APPL. 49241/2019
SMT. SUSHMA KAPOOR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Ms.

Ruchira Arora, Mr. Dhananjay
Mehlawat, Advs.
Versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, ASC for

respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings by the
respondents in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 81 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19541. It appears from the record that the Halqua
Patwari submitted a report on 16 April 2019 asserting that agricultural land
comprised in Khasra No.601/2 Min situated in the revenue estate of Village
Gadaipur, New Delhi was being used for non-agricultural purposes. The
allegation essentially was that certain unauthorized constructions were
being raised upon agricultural land. On receipt of that report, the Sub

1 Act

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 1 of 7

 2021:DHC:3890

Divisional Magistrate by an order of 23 April 2019 issued a “Restrainment

Order” against the petitioner and directed parties to desist from carrying on
further construction on the land in question. On 29 April 2019 a direction
was issued for the making of a conditional order. The Revenue Assistant by
a communication of 17 May 2019 passed what is described to be a
“Conditional Decree” holding that he was satisfied that the land was being
put to non-agricultural use and therefore called upon the petitioner to take
steps that the same is converted and restored back to its agricultural
character within a period of 3 months. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that
the instant writ petition came to be filed with the petitioner challenging the
orders of 29 April 2019 and 17 May 2019.
3. The challenge to the proceeding is principally based on the ground of
Revenue Assistant lacking jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act
since the land in question had come to be urbanised and would thus cease to
fall within the definition of “land” as employed in the Act. The submission
essentially proceeds on the basis of the uncontroverted fact that the property
stands comprised and covered in a notification dated 18 June 2013 issued
under Section 11-A of the Delhi Development Act, 19572 and noting that
the area would fall in a “Low Density Residential Area” in the concerned
urban extension.
4. According to Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner, once the land came to be covered in the notification
aforementioned in recognition of it having become urbanised and falling
within a Low Density Residential Area, proceedings under the Act could

2 DDA Act

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 2 of 7

 2021:DHC:3890

not have been initiated and would be clearly barred. It was submitted that
while the petitioners dispute the allegation that constructions were being
made since according to them only certain repair work was being
undertaken, even if one were to proceed on the basis of that allegation being
true, that would not invest the revenue authorities with jurisdiction to either
initiate proceedings under Section 81 of the Act or pass orders of restraint.
Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsel, submitted that while land falling within
an urbanised conglomeration and coming within the purview of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 19573 or the DDA Act may require parties
obtaining requisite permissions from competent authorities under those
enactments, that would not confer any authority or right upon the Revenue
Assistant to initiate proceedings under Section 81 or to issue to an order of
restraint. In any case, Mr. Yadav submitted that the issue raised in this
petition is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled in light of
the decision of this Court rendered in Sanraj Farms Private Limited Vs.
Charan Singh & Another4.
5. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Takiar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance upon a Circular of 03
July, 2013 on the basis of which it was contended that even if the land were
not agricultural or fell in an urban extension, if reports of unauthorized
constructions being raised is received, the revenue authorities are duty
bound to intervene and to enquire whether constructions were being raised
with due permission and requisite sanction.

3 DMC Act

4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10741

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 3 of 7

 2021:DHC:3890

6. It becomes pertinent to note at the outset that the question of whether

proceedings under the Act can be initiated in respect of land that falls
within a Low Density Residential Area squarely arose and came to be
answered in Sanraj Farms. The learned Judge after considering the
relevant provisions of the Act and the decisions rendered by this Court with
respect to land which could be subjected to the provisions of the Act held:-
13. In Gur Pratap Singh supra, vide Gazette Notification dated 16th June,
1995 by DDA for amendment of the Master Plan, motels were permitted
under Rural Zones/Green Belts and in Commercial Zones and National
Highways and Inter-State Roads as defined in the Notification. However,
on petitioner therein raising construction of a motel over his land in terms
thereof, the SDM started proceedings under Sections 23 and 81 of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act, 1954. It was held that (i) land is defined in Section
3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and vide Section 22 thereof
land can be used only for the purposes connected with agriculture,
horticulture or animal husbandry; once vide amendment of the Master Plan,
the land is permitted to be used as a motel, the land is no more agricultural
within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Land Reforms Act; (ii) the Land
Reforms Act is an enactment for protecting agricultural use of the land;
once the land itself ceases to be agricultural, there is really speaking no
question of application of the Land Reforms Act; (iii) the amendment of the
Master Plan was in accordance with the Section 53(2) of the DDA Act,
1957 and which overrides the provisions of any other law; and, (iv) Section
53(3) of the DDA Act makes it clear that once permission for development
in respect of any land has been obtained, the same shall not be deemed to
be unlawful by reason of the fact that such permission is required under any
other law and which permission has not been obtained; the mandate of the
DDA would have an overriding effect, even if the Land Reforms Act was
to apply.
14. In appeal preferred thereagainst, the Division Bench confirmed the
finding of the Single Judge. It was observed that once the Master Plan,
which admittedly covered the subject land, gave an option for use of the
land falling in Rural Zone or Green Belt as a motel, on the exercise of the
said option, the subject land goes out of ambit of Section 23 of the Land
Reforms Act, because it would not constitute a change of land use
necessitating permission under the said provision.
15. In Shri Neelpadmaya Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. supra, one of the
issues for adjudication in the suit was whether the suit land was governed
by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and the agreement between
W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 4 of 7
 2021:DHC:3890

the parties was in violation of the provisions of the said Act. Following the
judgments aforesaid, it was held (i) that a notification for urbanization need
not only be through a notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act as the later part of Section 3(13) of the Land Reforms Act
does not in any way require that there is only one manner of notification viz
only under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act; (ii)
Section 3(13) of the Land Reforms Act only requires that a notification is
issued in an Official Gazette to make the land as part of the Delhi town and
New Delhi town; once a notification is issued applying a zonal plan issued
pursuant to the Master Plan showing that subject lands are covered under
the zonal plan issued by the DDA, in such a situation it has to be held that
the lands cease to be the lands covered under the Land Reforms Act
because the issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette results in the
lands becoming part of Delhi town; and, (iii) that as per Sections 1, 3(5)
and 3(15) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, once an area falls within a town
area and an area ceases to be an agricultural land because it has to be
developed as part of the development of the Delhi town or New Delhi
town, then such an area no longer remains an agricultural area for being
covered under the expression „land‟ as defined in Section 3(13) of the Land
Reforms Act.
23. In view of the aforesaid judgments which are binding on me, it has but
to be held that on the issuance of notification dated 18th June, 2013, the land
subject matter of the suit, insofar as for the purposes of maintainability of
the proceedings before the Courts under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, has
ceased to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Issue No. I is
accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

7. The Court further takes note of the consistent line taken in the body
of precedents on this subject starting from the decision of the Division
Bench in Smt. Indu Khorana Vs. Gaon Sabha5 and the subsequent
decisions which were noticed in Sanraj Farms which have explained the
concept of “land” as liable to be understood and interpreted under the
provisions of the Act. The ratio of those decisions with respect to the
applicability of the Act must be recognized to be that land in order to be
made subject to proceeding under the Act must answer to the description as

5 W.P. (C) 4143/2003 decided on 26 March 2010

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 5 of 7

 2021:DHC:3890

set forth in the Section 3(13) of the Act. As would be manifest from a
reading of Section 3(13) of the Act, it is only land held or occupied for
purposes connected with agriculture, pisciculture, horticulture, animal
husbandry or poultry farming which could be subjected to proceedings
under the Act. The decisions noted above have proceeded further to hold
that once land has become urbanized and thus found to have been put to a
use or purpose other than those mentioned above, it would clearly fall
outside the purview and ambit of the Act. The judgments of the Court in
unequivocal terms hold that once the property ceases to answer to the
description of land as defined under the Act, proceedings can neither be
initiated and if commenced must abate.
8. The provisions of Section 3(13) of the Act were interpreted similarly
by the Supreme Court in Harpal Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar6 where the
Court held: -
“5…….The position of law which has been consistently followed is that
where the land has not been used for any purpose contemplated under the
Land Reforms Act and has been built upon, it would cease to be agricultural
land. Once agricultural land loses its basic character and has been converted
into authorised/unauthorised colonies by dividing it into plots, disputes of
plot holders cannot be decided by the Revenue Authorities and would have
to be resolved by the civil court. The bar under Section 185 would not be
attracted.”

9. Once the fact of the land being covered under the notification of 18
June 2013 and covered under a Low Density Residential Area is admitted to
the respondents, it is manifest that the proceedings initiated under the Act
cannot be sustained. The Court also fails to find any merit in the contention
of Ms. Takiar that the revenue authorities would still be empowered to
6 (2018) 11 SCC 113

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 6 of 7

 2021:DHC:3890

enquire whether constructions were being raised without the requisite

permissions as contemplated under the DMC or DDA Acts. Those
enactments incorporate sufficient measures for enquiry and enforcement
and independently confer powers in connection therewith upon statutory
authorities other than revenue officials.
10. The Circular of 03 July 2013 also cannot come to the rescue of the
respondents nor can it sustain the impugned action since and as is fairly
noted therein the principal focus of enforcement of the Act is to be placed
upon the prevention of “unauthorized colonization of agriculture land”.
That Circular cannot possibly be read as conferring authority on the Sub
Divisional Magistrate or the Revenue Assistant to initiate proceedings
under Section 81 of the Act even in respect of land which may fall outside
the ambit and scope thereof.
11. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, this petition along with
pending application shall stand allowed and the restrainment order dated
23rd April, 2019 as well as proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned
order dated 29th April, 2019 shall stand quashed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2021/neha

W.P.(C) 12038/2019 Page 7 of 7