Sh. Charan Singh (Since Deceased Through LRs) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 5949/2023 & CM APPL. 23357/2023 (Application under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking interimrelief.)

3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for declaration as the bhumidar of the lands admeasuring 43 bighas forming part of khasra no. 784 situated in the revenue estate of Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.

4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that a suit was filed in the year 1981 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for declaration of bhumidari rights. The petitioner was declared as a bhumidar by the learned SDM. Against the said order, the Gram Sabha filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appeal filed on behalf of Gram Sabha was allowed by the learned ADM. Thereafter, the matter went right upto the Supreme Court. By order dated 05.02.1996, in SLP No. 8960/1986, the Supreme Court remanded back the matter to the SDM for hearing afresh.

5. It is contended that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed an application for its impleadment before the learned SDM on the ground that it was a necessary party. Subsequent to its impleadment, the DDA moved an application for rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that statutory notice had not been served upon the DDA. On this ground, the petition as filed by the petitioner for declaration of bhumidari rights, was dismissed by the learned SDM.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM) was dismissed on the ground that the land already stands urbanised.

7. The appeal of the petitioner before the Ld. Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on similar ground of the land having been urbanised. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted to the position that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Another Vs Narain Singh and Others, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, the proceedings under the Revenue Act will not be maintainable after urbanisation of the land in question. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks prayer in the present petition to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach Civil Court.

9. Issue notice.

10. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and 4 respectively.

11. Considering the facts of the case, wherein the present petition essentially emanates from the proceedings pertaining to the claim of the petitioner for declaring the petitioner as bhumidar of the land in question and considering the fact that the land in question already stands urbanised and that the various proceedings under the DLR Act will not be maintainable in an area which already stands urbanised, it is deemed expedient to grant liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for.

12. As and when the petitioner files appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court, the petitioner herein would have the liberty to seek exclusion of time spent in the proceedings under the DLR Act from the Civil Court under Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 by bringing to notice of the Civil Court the litigation which the petitioner herein has been pursuing since the year 1981.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for appropriate prayer with respect to declaration of his rights qua the land in question. MINI PUSHKARNA, J MAY 08th, 2023 c