Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th September, 2025
GANDHI KUSTH KRISHI SANSTHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Advocate
Mob: 9868423615 Email: robinpawar0@gmail.com
Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, SC for MCD
Mob: 9643579702 Email: adityasachdeva21@gmail.com
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, ASC
DDA
Mob: 9810980027 Email: admin@skvassociates.com
Mr. Shubham, Advocate for Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Panel Counsel, GNCTD
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 10th July, 2015, passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”). There is a further prayer for restraining the respondent no. 1, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) from taking possession of the agricultural land and compound in Leprosy Complex/Tahirpur Complex, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the document filed by the petitioner with regard to the Jamabandi of village Jhilmil, Tahirpur Tehsil and District, Delhi. By referring to the aforesaid revenue record, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner, as a tenant. It is submitted that the petitioner has been cultivating crops, and are in settled possession of the land in question. Thus, it is submitted that the MCD be restrained from taking possession of the agricultural land and compound in the land in question, without due process of law.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relies upon a Comprehensive Policy on Tahirpur Complex, issued by the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, to submit that a decision had been taken by the GNCTD to allow the healthy descendants of Leprosy affected patients to stay in the land in question for one generation, and they were also held to be eligible for relocation as per the existing Rehabilitation Policy of GNCTD.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-MCD submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in the present proceedings. He further submits that the land in question is a government land and does not belong to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has wrongly claimed ownership of the land in question and draws the attention of this Court to the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. He further submits that the Comprehensive Policy, as relied upon by the petitioners for their rehabilitation, was only a tentative policy, which has never been finalized or implemented.
5. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an alternate place for rehabilitation be granted to the petitioner society, since they have been in possession of the land in question for a long time.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that as per the document on record, the MCD has been running a Leprosy Home at Tahirpur, Shahdara, and providing basic medical facilities and dry ration, etc. to the inmates therein. Further, the document shows that the MCD has handed over possession of the vacant land in question measuring 30 acres, together with the entire complex, spread over 14 acres consisting of the building of Leprosy Home/Hospital/Staff quarters at Village Tahirpur to the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD. Further, decision was also taken to transfer the whole Leprosy Home Complex, Tahirpur, Shahdara, to the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, to carry out all medical, social and rehabilitation activities under one administrative control. The document pertaining to the same, is reproduced as under:
7. This Court notes that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3060/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 18th February, 2015, in the following manner:
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a speaking order dated 10th July, 2015, has been passed by the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, which reads as under:
9. By perusing the aforesaid order, it clearly comes to the fore that 21 Leprosy affected persons are staying in the barracks of the MCD Hospital in Tahirpur Complex. The said persons are provided with dry ration, vegetables and other facilities, including, medical services. The said area of the barracks is under the control of the MCD. A joint survey was conducted, on the basis of which it was indicated that the land in question, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is in the possession of the MCD. Thus, the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, has come to a categorical conclusion and finding that the area in question, measuring 16 acres, consisting of agricultural land and pond, belongs to the MCD.
10. This Court further takes note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, i.e., Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, wherein, it is stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
11. Thus, it is manifest that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentation certifying ownership of the land in question, as claimed by them.
12. Further, the respondent no. 3-Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) in its Status Report dated 11th July, 2017, has stated as follows:
13. Thus, it is evident that as per the revenue record, the land in question is meant for Leprosy Home/Colony, and is not a private land or vested with the petitioner.
14. This Court also takes note of the submission made on behalf of the respondents, raising objection to the veracity of the revenue record filed by the petitioner. In this regard, submissions made on behalf of MCD, in its counter affidavit, are reproduced as under:
15. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek to establish any disputed questions of facts as regards ownership over the land in question, when it is the categorical stand of the government authorities that the land in question belongs to the government. No right can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of certain revenue entries, when the same have been disputed.
16. While holding that the presumption of correctness of government records is only applicable to genuine documents, and not forged or fraudulent entries, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati Versus Fakhrul Hassan and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 642, held as follows:
14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.
15. In Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan [AIR 1965 SC 54: (1964) 7 SCR 800], it was held by this Court that Section 20 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1951 does not require proof of actual possession and that its purpose is to eliminate inquiries into disputed possession by acceptance of the entries in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 Fasli. While commenting on this decision, this Court observed in Sonawati v. Sri Ram [AIR 1968 SC 466: (1968) 1 SCR 617, 620] that “the civil court in adjudging a claim of a person to the rights of an adhivasi is not called upon to make an enquiry whether the claimant was actually in possession of the land or held the right as an occupant: cases of fraud apart, the entry in the record alone is relevant.” We have supplied the emphasis in order to show that the normal presumption of correctness attaching to entries in the revenue record, which by law constitute evidence of a legal title, is displaced by proof of fraud. (emphasis supplied)
17. Further, there is no document on record to show any transfer of the land in question in favour of the petitioner.
18. While holding that revenue records are not documents of title, the Supreme Court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar Versus Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483, held as follows:
12. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title.
13. This Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur[2] held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
14. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs[3] wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
15. In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[4], this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows: “6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.”
16. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs.[5] wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. (emphasis supplied)
19. This Court also notes the contradictory submissions made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner claims possessory/ownership rights over the land in question. On the other hand, the petitioner claims alternate rehabilitation. Clearly, the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the land in question.
20. Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, no merit is found in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, along with the pending application. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025