Sh. Sahab Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. This writ petition has been preferred principally seeking the following reliefs:- “ a) issuance of writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no.2/Tehsildar to correct the entries in the revenue record in respect of said land mentioned in para no.1 of the present writ petition in accordance with order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the Revenue Assistant U/s 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in case No.262/RA/1983; 2021:DHC:4170 b) issuance of writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no.2/Tehsildar to implement the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 18.03.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1741/2013 in the revenue record in respect of said land mentioned in para no. l of the present writ petition; c) Issuance of writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus/ prohibition thereby directing the respondent no.4/NHAI not to disburse/release compensation of the acquired land i.e. Part of Khasra No.48/14 Min, Village Neelwal, Delhi as notified vide notification dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure-P-8) in favour of Gaon Sabha Neelwal/respondent no.3;”

2. It appears from the record that the petitioner claimed bhumidari rights in terms of the provisions made under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954[1]. That claim came to be duly recognised by the Revenue Assistant in terms of an order passed on 5th February 2013. Subsequently, the Revenue Assistant by an order dated 4th /5th February, 2013 is stated to have reviewed/recalled the same. This led to the petitioner filing W.P.(C) 1741/2013 before this Court asserting that the Revenue Assistant had no authority or jurisdiction to review an order once passed in exercise of powers conferred by the 1954 Act. The aforesaid contention met approval with a learned Judge of the Court allowing the writ petition aforenoted on 18th March 2013 and setting aside the subsequent order of review as passed.

3. The matter was remitted to the Revenue Assistant to reconsider the entire issue on merits after hearing the petitioner herein. Consequent to the 1 1954 Act aforesaid order of remit as made by this Court, the Revenue Assistant proceeded to pass an order on 6th June, 2013 holding that since no power to undertake a review on merits stood statutorily vested, the proceedings as were initiated at the behest of the Gaon Sabha shall stand closed. This led to the Gaon Sabha approaching the Deputy Commissioner by way of an appeal. On that appeal and by an order of 3rd July, 2013, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order of stay placing the original order of the Tehsildar of 5th February, 2013 in abeyance.

4. In the meantime, it appears that a part of the property in question came to be notified under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956[2]. Consequent to the acquisition of the property in accordance with the provisions made in the 1956 Act and in terms of the Notification of 2nd September, 2021 issued thereunder, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs aforenoted.

5. Insofar as relief (c) is concerned, this Court is of the firm opinion that no such direction can possibly be issued in light of the pendency of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the order of stay made in those proceeding on 3rd July, 2013. The effect of the aforesaid proceedings is that the title and interest which is claimed by the petitioner as well as the Gaon Sabha are issues which still await adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner. Till that dispute is finally decided, all that can be observed is that both the petitioner as well as the Gaon Sabha shall have the liberty to address and urge all rights and contentions before the competent authority 2 1956 Act constituted under the 1956 Act and which would deal with the issue of payment of compensation.

6. That only leaves the Court to consider the grant of reliefs (a) and (b) as prayed for in the writ petition. The grievance of Mr. Rana learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in this respect was that although the respondents have proceeded to record the fact of the order of stay having been passed by the Financial Commissioner, the revenue record has failed to reflect or record the factum of the original order passed by the competent authority on 5th February, 2013. This in the considered view of the Court would not be sustainable for the following reasons.

7. The revenue record must necessarily and faithfully reflect and bear all orders that may have been passed in course of proceedings under the 1954 Act. It becomes pertinent to recollect the well settled principle that an order of stay does not have the effect of the same standing effaced or ceasing to exist in the eyes of law. The Court in this connection bear in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd vs. Church Or South India Trust Assn.[3] where the following observations came to be entered: “10. …... While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any proceedings under the Act were pending before the Board or the Appellate Authority on the date of the passing of the order dated August 14, 1991 by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for winding up of the company or on November 6, 1991 when the Division Bench passed the order dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the respondents..”

8. In view of the principles enunciated therein the ends of justice would warrant the respondents being hereby commanded to make appropriate entries in the revenue record which would reflect the passing of the order of 5th February 2013 by the Revenue Assistant. Additionally, the relevant entries that may be made shall also be subject to the rider of it being duly noted and recorded that the aforesaid order presently stands placed in abeyance in light of the order of 3rd July 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal which is pending.

9. The writ petition shall accordingly stand allowed to the extent that the respondents shall make appropriate entries in the revenue record reflecting the passing of the order of 5th February 2013 by the Revenue Assistant subject to the rider that the same forms subject matter of the pending appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and in which an order of 3rd July, 2013 stands passed placing the original order under suspension.

10. As agreed and consented to by learned counsels for parties, a further direction is issued requesting the Deputy Commissioner to proceed with the pending appeal which has remained existing on its board since 2013 with expedition and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to respective parties.

11. Though needless to state, it is further observed that the present proceedings were confined to the issue of appropriate entries and recordal of facts being made in the revenue record. This decision is neither to be understood nor construed as dealing with or deciding the issue of payment of compensation under the 1956 Act. All rights and contentions of respective parties in that respect are kept open.

12. In the view of the aforesaid the writ petition along with the pending application is disposed of.

YASHWANT VARMA, J. DECEMBER 14, 2021 SU