Sh. Arun Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up for final hearing. 2013:DHC:7757 - - No.3/Revenuc Assistant/SDM under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 with respect to land falling in Khasra Nos.28/6/2 (0-18) and 27110 Min (2-08) situated in the Revenue Estate ofVillage Pooth Khurd, Delhi. The Petitioner claims to be the recorded owner and in possession of the aforesaid land situated in Village Pooth Khurd, as reflected in Khasra Girdawari of the year 2012-2013. The Revenue Assistant (Narela)/Respondent No.3 initiated proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in respect of the aforesaid land on the report ofthe Halqa Patwari dated 20.09.2010 to the effect that the recorded owners were using the land for stocking of building materials and thereby trying to convert the agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. On 27.12.2010, a conditional order was passed, which reads as follows:-

3. "Case No.336/RA/N/1 0 Under section 81 ofDLR Act, 1954 Case title G.S. Pooth Khurd Vs. Arun Kumar Institute the case VIs 81 of D.L.R. Act, 1954 and conditional order issued on 27.12.2010. RAISO(C) Sdl- English 27.12.2010" The order sheet of the aforesaid case reflects that thereafter from time to time the case was adjourned on account of the fact that the Presiding Officer was busy, i.e., on 27.03.2011, 27.05.2011, 30.08.2011, 25.10.2011, 23.12.2011, 08.03.2012 and 23.04.2012. On 14.06.2012, when the case was taken up, notice was directed to be On the said date, i.e., on 11.07.2012, the following order was passed by the Respondent No.3:- "Case called. Present Sh. Umed Singh father of Sh. Arun Kumar on behalfon behalfofthe respondent. None present on behalfofGaon Sabha. Sh. Umed Singh submit that he has submitted a letter to SDM (NE) on 30.08.2011 stating that building materials i.e. rodi, dust, badarpur was stored on the land in question during September, 2010 and his land is lying vacant from May, 2011. In this case conditional order was issued on 27/1212010, which has not been complied by the respondent within the time limit as per report of Halqa Patwari dated 26.03.2011, rodi, badarpur, dust etc. stocked on the land in question. Case is reservedfor order. "

4. On 30.07.2012, the Respondent No.3/Revenue Assistant after recording that a conditional order was passed on 27.12.2010 directing the recorded owner to convert the land back into agricultural land, proceeded to record that as per the report of the Halqa Patwari dated 26.03.2011 the building material was still in existence on the land in question. The Respondent No.3 thereafter recorded that on 11.07.2012 the Petitioner (recorded owner - Respondent before the Revenue Assistant) had appeared and upon asking had stated that during September, 2010 the stock was there, however at present the land in dispute is lying vacant. Meaning thereby at the time of the conditional order or after three months of the conditional order the required. By this process of reasoning, the Respondent No.3 ejected the Petitioner from the land in question and vested the same in the Gaon Sabha.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the conditional order dated 27.12.2010 was passed without prior notice to the Petitioner and without affording to the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, deserved to be set aside. He contended that a perusal of the order sheet of the Revenue Assistant makes it abundantly clear that for the first time notice was issued to the Petitioner on 14.06.2012, i.e., about eighteen months after the passing of the conditional order on 27.12.2010. Pursuant to the said notice, the Petitioner appeared on 11.07.2012 and stated that the land is lying vacant from May, 2011. On the said day, i.e., on 11.07.2012, the Revenue Assistant reserved the case for orders and thereafter on 30th July, 2012 vested the land in the Gaon Sabha. An appeal from the order of the Revenue Assistant was immediately filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, but the said appeal has not been considered by the Respondent No.2 though five months have expired since the appeal was filed.

6. A perusal of the order sheet of the Revenue Assistant filed by the Petitioner clearly shows that no prior notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Revenue Assistant before the passing of the conditional order issued on 27.12.2010. Inferentially, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner. The record also. ' on 11.07.2012. It is apparent from the record that on the said date the Petitioner appeared before the Revenue Assistant/SDM, but the Revenue Assistant proceeded to pass the ejectment order despite the petitioner stating that the land was lying vacant. Clearly, therefore, the principles of natural justice were given a complete go-bye by the Respondent No.3.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the case is remanded back to the Revenue Assistant/SDM for being tried afresh after prior notice to the Petitioner and affording to the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Revenue Assistant/SDM shall pass a fresh order after considering the material placed by the Petitioner before the Revenue Assistant/SDM within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

8. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. CM No.2444/2013 also stands disposed of accordingly. February 26, 2013 km f--~ REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE)