Rajeev Shah v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

(c) grove-lands,

(d) lands for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bid of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation, but does not include-land occupied by buildings in belts of areas adjacent to Delhi town and New Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto; Section 3(15) “New Delhi town” means the area included in the limits of the New Delhi Municipality and Delhi Cantonment.”

21. A reading of the later part of sub-Section (13) of Section 3 of the Act shows that the land which is the subject matter of the Act would no longer be the subject matter of the Act if there is issued a notification in the Official Gazette that the land which was the subject matter of the Act is an acquisition to the Delhi town and New Delhi town. Delhi town and New Delhi town as the definitions thereof show that the areas which are included in a municipality or a cantonment area or New Delhi Municipal Council area etc. are excluded from the scope of the Act. Putting it in another words, areas which would fall under the municipalities i.e urbanized areas or areas to be developed as an urban area were excluded from the purview of the Act. This also becomes clear from the reading of Section 1 of the Act which excluded the operation of the Act when it came into force to areas which fell within any municipality or notified area under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 or the Cantonments Act, 1924 i.e those areas which were not rural and fell in urbanized area. A conjoint reading of provisions of Sections 1, 3(5), 3(13) and 3(15) of the Act shows that the object of law was that on a notification being issued in the Official Gazette of an area which was falling under the Act thereafter as falling within the Delhi town and New Delhi town on such an action of such lands falling in Delhi town and New Delhi town these lands cease to be the subject matter of „land‟ which was the subject matter of the Act on account of the said land being land within the meaning of the definition of the land in Section 3(13) of the Act. It is also required to be noted that the expression municipality with its cognate and agnate expressions has to be understood as being taken as urban areas because a municipality is for an urban area and it has to be taken as a genetic term for urban area in terms of the object of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Thus if by a notification in an Official Gazette an area ceases to be a rural land as it is urbanized for urban development, then such lands are no longer rural lands falling under Section 3(13) of the Act. 22(i). The issue is that whether there exists a notification issued in the Official Gazette declaring the subject land as falling within Delhi town and New Delhi town? On behalf of the defendants, it is argued that the land which is the subject matter of the Act can be urbanized only if notification is issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and which admittedly has not been issued so far as the said village and suit lands are concerned and hence it is argued that once the land is not urbanized because a notification is not issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the land in question continues to be the subject matter of the land falling under Section 3(13) of the Act and hence the land governed by the Act and hence the Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 are hit by the provision of Section 33 of the Act. 22(ii) In response to the argument urged on behalf of the defendants, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that it is not necessary that notification which is talked of in the later part of Section 3(13) of the Act has necessarily to be a notification only under Section 507 of the Delhi Muncipal Corporation Act, 1951 inasmuch as even a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 11 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 declaring an area to be the subject matter of a master plan or a zonal plan of the Delhi Development Authority, has the effect that such a land with respect to which a master plan or a zonal plan or an area plan is prepared (and which will entitle thereafter the DDA to treat such area as development area for being developed as per the master or zonal plan etc) shows that by such notification lands no longer will remain the subject matter of the Act inasmuch as such lands are part of urbanization. Reliance is also placed in this regard upon paras 19 and 24 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gur Pratap Singh v. Union of India 2004 (111) DLT 25, and by which paras, the learned Single Judge has held that once a particular area is a subject matter of the notification under the Delhi Development Act by notifying the master plan or zonal plan then such land becomes urbanized and hence is out of the scope of application of the Act and Section 3(13) of the Act. These paras 19 and 24 read as under: -

23. I agree with the argument which is urged on behalf of the plaintiff 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 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. This later part of Section 3(13) of the Act does not talk of a notification only under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The requirement of this later part of Section 3(13) of the Act is only that a notification is issued in the 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 Act because of issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette results in the lands becoming part of the Delhi town. Additional reasoning on this aspect can be understood from the object and the language found in Section 1 and Sections 3(5) and 3(15) of the Act and which Sections show that 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 Act. With humility, I am in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Guru Pratap Singh (supra) and which arrives at the same conclusion that once the land ceases to be agricultural, the land ceases to be the subject matter of the Act.

24. I may note that the plaintiff has proved the zonal plan Ex.PW 5/1 and the notification Letter dated 4.6.2010 as Ex.PW 5/2 and these documents clearly show that the entire village Goela Khurd and wherein the suit land is located is the subject matter of the zonal plan issued under the Delhi Development Authority. As per the aforesaid discussion, as also the ratio of the learned Single Judge in Gur Pratap Singh (supra), once the land is the subject matter of a zonal plan issued under Section 11 of the Delhi Development Act, the land is beyond the purview of the Act. It is also therefore immaterial as to what is the deposition made in this regard by the witness PW-5, inasmuch as, the arguments urged on behalf of the defendant that PW-5 has stated in cross-examination dated 1.2.2013 that it is not known as to whether khasra numbers of village Goela Khurd fall or do not fall in the “dotted or the recreational area” inasmuch as Ex.PW 5/1 and Ex.PW 5/2 show that the entire area of village Goela Khurd is a part of the zonal plan. As long as the village Goela Khurd is the subject matter of the zonal plan Ex.P5/1 that it is sufficient for the entire area of village Goela Khurd to be urbanized land, hence the subject land is situated and become an area which is notified for urbanization resulting in taking the same out of rural areas which are the subject matter of the Act. Also, in my opinion, once a particular area falls within the zonal development plan issued by the DDA under Section 11 of the Delhi Development Act, thereafter calling the same by any description, whether rural or otherwise cannot take away the effect that the said land is very much part of notification issued for development of the area which is the subject matter of the zonal plan and hence the subject matter of issuance of a notification falling in the later part of Section 3(13) of the Act taking such land as outside the operation of the Act.”

15. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that once land is subject matter of zonal plan issued under Section 11 of DD Act, it is beyond the purview of the DLR Act. After the notification dated 18.06.2013, Village Rajokri became an urban village, and therefore, the DLR Act ceased to apply to the land in question.

16. Thus, position is clear that Village Rajokri became part of urban land with effect from the notification dated 18.06.2013 declaring the land as LDRA. The effect of the said notification dated 18.06.2013 is that DLR Act ceases to apply to the lands situated in Village Rajokri, where the land, subject matter of this writ petition is situated.

17. Both the parties have relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanvik Engineers (supra) in support of their submissions. The petitioner has relied upon the said judgment to contend that its case falls in “Case 2” as detailed in the said judgment. On that basis it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR Act were at a nascent stage and no conditional/final order had been passed, rather the SDM had dropped the proceeding by order dated 26.05.2010, therefore, after declaration of the area as LDRA, the appeal before the learned ADM cannot continue.

18. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the present case falls in “Case 4” of the Sanvik Engineers judgment, since in the present case the appeal in question had been filed by the Gaon Sabha on 13.10.2010 and the same was pending at the time of issuance of notification dated 18.06.2013 declaring the area as LDRA.

19. As far as the judgment in the case of Sanvik Engineers (supra) is concerned, in the said judgment, this Court has classified the various situations under the following broad heads:- “Case No. 1. Where proceedings have not been initiated and notifications under the DMC/DDA Acts intervene. Case No. 2. Where although proceedings have been initiated or a conditional order made, notifications come to be issued before a final order directing ejectment and vesting is passed. Case No. 3. Where the notifications come to be issued after a final order of ejectment and vesting comes to be made. Case No. 4. Where a notification comes to be issued during the pendency of an appeal or revision against a final order at the behest of the landholder or Gaon Sabha.”

20. With respect to “Case 2” as aforesaid, it has been held in the said judgment that where proceedings have merely reached the stage of initiation or a conditional order has been passed, there would remain no legitimate or useful purpose to continue those proceedings. With respect to “Case 4”, it has been held that the mere fact that a notification for urbanisation has come to be issued between passing of a final order and the institution of the appeal or where an appeal is pending on the date of issuance of a notification, such appeal cannot be said to abate and the right of a land holder or a Gram Sabha to institute or pursue an appeal which may be pending on the date of the issuance of the notification cannot be said to be foreclosed or be lost. Thus, as per the said judgment of Sanvik Engineers (supra), appeal would continue in such cases and would not be dropped even though in the meanwhile, the area in question may have become urbanised.

21. The aforesaid judgment of Sanvik Engineers (supra) has been followed by this Court in its various judgments. Thus, if this Court were to follow the aforesaid judgment in the case of Sanvik Engineers (supra), then the appeal in the present case pending before Ld. ADM would be allowed to be continued, even though subsequently, the area in question has come to be declared as LDRA.

22. However, in a recent judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRS and Another Vs Narain Singh and Others[5], Supreme Court has held in very categorical terms that once an area becomes urbanised, the provisions of DLR Act cease to apply and the proceedings pending under the said Act become non-est and lose its legal significance. Thus, it has been held as follows:-

23. Thus, the Supreme Court has laid down in categorical terms that all pending proceedings under the DLR Act become non-est and cannot continue after urbanisation of land in question. Though attention of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) was not brought to the judgment in the case of Sanvik Engineers (supra) 2023 SCC Online SC 261 where classification of cases has been made under 4 heads, however, when the Supreme Court has not made any such classification and has given a clear and categorical direction that all proceedings under the DLR Act would become non-est after urbanisation of an area, this Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court, as being the law of the land.

24. Article 141 of the Constitution of India indicates in clear terms that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Thus, in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. and Others Vs M.R. Apparao & Another[6], it has been held as follows:-

25. Therefore, considering the law of the land as declared by Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra), the inevitable conclusion is that the proceedings pending before the learned ADM under the DLR Act after urbanisation of the area in question cannot continue. The Supreme Court has held clearly that all proceedings under the DLR Act lose their legal significance after urbanisation of the area in question. The Supreme Court has made no segregation as regards the proceedings under the DLR Act being at initial stages or where final order under the DLR has already come to be passed at the time of urbanisation of the land. Thus, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, all proceedings emanating from the DLR Act would be liable to be quashed after urbanisation, as the DLR Act ceases to apply. The Supreme Court nowhere differentiates between the original proceedings or the Appellate proceedings that may be pending under the DLR Act before the Revenue Authorities at the time of declaration of an area as urbanised.

26. Though attention of the Supreme Court was not brought to the judgment in the case of Sanvik Engineers (supra), however, in view of the clear finding of the Supreme Court, the said judgment pertaining to the finding that pending appeals under the DLR Act will continue despite the area being declared as urbanised, is deemed to have been overruled.

27. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in appeal bearing no. 70/2010, titled as GS Rajokri Vs Rajiv shah (deceased) through LRs before the Court of Learned Additional District Magistrate, District New Delhi, Jam Nagar House under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, are hereby quashed.

28. However, the parties are at liberty to agitate their claims/ disputes including challenge to the order of SDM/RA, which is subject matter of appeal before the learned ADM, before appropriate forum/ civil Court. It is clarified that all the pleas in law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriate forum.

29. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions along with the pending application.

JUDGE APRIL 10, 2023 c