SUSHMA KAPOOR Imp
SUSHMA KAPOOR Imp
SUSHMA KAPOOR Imp
$~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
1 Act
2 DDA Act
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
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
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
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2021/neha