IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 5329/2012
PITAM JANKALYAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Amitab Suman and Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R-1 and
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
29.08.2012
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents
no.3 and 4 are trying to grab public land bearing khasra nos.103/23/2 and
103/24 situated in Village Karala, New Delhi. The petitioner has
produced the information supplied to him by the Office of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Saraswati Vihar), Kanjhawala, Delhi under the
Right to Information Act, as per which, the land covered by the aforesaid
khasra numbers is mutated in the name of Gram Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is submitted in spite thereof the
authorities have given permission to respondents no.3 and 4 to construct
a boundary wall on the said land and it amounts to grabbing of a public
land by these respondents.
Notice.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondents no.1 and 2. He wants some time to verify the facts and to
file the status report.
In the meantime, notice be issued to respondents no.3 and 4,
returnable for 19th September, 2012.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 29, 2012
dk
W.P.(C) 5329/2012
PITAM JANKALYAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Amitab Suman and Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R-1 and
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
29.08.2012
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents
no.3 and 4 are trying to grab public land bearing khasra nos.103/23/2 and
103/24 situated in Village Karala, New Delhi. The petitioner has
produced the information supplied to him by the Office of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Saraswati Vihar), Kanjhawala, Delhi under the
Right to Information Act, as per which, the land covered by the aforesaid
khasra numbers is mutated in the name of Gram Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is submitted in spite thereof the
authorities have given permission to respondents no.3 and 4 to construct
a boundary wall on the said land and it amounts to grabbing of a public
land by these respondents.
Notice.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondents no.1 and 2. He wants some time to verify the facts and to
file the status report.
In the meantime, notice be issued to respondents no.3 and 4,
returnable for 19th September, 2012.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 29, 2012
dk
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 5329/2012
PITAM JANKALYAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Deb Nandan, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajiv Nanda and Ms Shawna, Advs. for Respondents 1,2 and 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
O R D E R
10.04.2013
This petition in public interest has been filed by Pitam Jankalyan
Samiti, alleging construction of boundary wall on public land comprising
Khasra No. 103/23-24 of Village Karala. It is alleged in the petition
that respondent No. 3, who was earlier posted as SDM in connivance with
the land grabbers, allowed construction of boundary wall upon public land
by one Dr. Krishna Kumari Thakran. When a complaint of illegal
construction of public land and its grabbing was made, respondent No. 3
cancelled the permission granted by him. The petitioner has, therefore,
sought a direction to the respondents to remove encroachment on the
aforesaid public land.
2. In its reply, respondent No. 4, who is the SHO of the concerned
area,
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 1 of 8
has stated as under:-
It is submitted that Smt. Sheela Devi had given a complaint to the
police wherein she alleged that her land of Khasra No.103/23/2, Rajiv
Nagar, Phase-II, Delhi is lying for many years. The measurement of this
land is 2 bigha 5 biswa i.e. about 2520 sq. yards and out of this land
about 1260 sq. yards belongs to her jeth Rajinder Singh and was sold to
the same by her father-in-law. Dealer Arun Thakran and Ram Kala started
to claim the owner of her land themselves when she went to clean her land
and she was threatened. Lateron, on the basis of the complaint ASI Ram
Kishore was deputed to conduct the inquiry and after inquiry, it was
found that Sh.Hoshiyar Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o Village and P.O.
Karala, Delhi was the landlord of Khasra no.103/23/2, Rajiv Nagar, Phase-
II, Delhi and he was the father-in-law of complainant Sheela. Sh.
Hoshiyar Singh had sold the land i.e. Plot No.C-8 to C-12 measuring area
880 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/18/1, 17, Plot No.C-13 to C-16 measuring
area 400 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, 24, Plot No.C-17-A to C-20,
measuring area 800 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, situated at Village
Karala, Delhi to one Sh. Kishan Chand S/o Tokh Ram R/o 313, V.P.O. Deoli
on 27.3.1989, who in turn sold the plot no.C-8 to C-12, area measuring
180 sq. yards of Khasra No.103/18/1, 17, Plot No.C-13 to C-16, area 400
sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, 24 and Plot No.C-17-A to C-20, area 800
sq. yards Khasra No.103/23/2/24 located at Village Karala, Delhi to Sh.
Virender Singh Thakran S/o Hoshiyar Singh through registered General
Power of Attorney, but the name of the owner was not entered by way of
mutation in the revenue records. The complainant is wrongly claiming
herself to be the owner of the land whereas her father-in-law had already
sold the said land and Dr.Krishna Kumar Thakran wife of
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 2 of 8
Sh.Virender Singh Thakran obtained the permission for erecting boundary
wall over the said land and after getting the permission she erected
boundary wall over the said land and after getting the permission she
erected boundary wall over the property. As the father-in-law of the
complainant has already sold the property and the alleged land was
finally purchased by Virender Singh Thakran and he is in possession since
1.9.2002 and the claim of the claimant Sheela Devi is false. Hence the
complainant of Sheela Devi has been filed. It is further submitted that
police has taken action and conducted inquiry on the complaint of Smt.
Sheela Devi.
3. In their reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated as under:
The permission was granted by the STF team in the meeting held in this
regard on 19/07/2011 on the basis of application of Smt. Krishna Kumari
for repairing/raising the already existing boundary wall. Copy of
Application made by Smt.Krishna Kumari is enclosed as Annexure A.
Subsequently, the applicant (Smt. Krishna Kumari) had submitted
registered GPA document as proof of ownership. It is important here that
the land in question fall in the Unauthorised Colony Rajeev Nagar, Ph. II
(Provisional Registration No.961) and Sher Singh Enclave (Provisional
Registration No.923) and the same is Governed and protected by Govt. of
NCT OF Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Act 2011, for taking any
legal action. It is also submitted that as per the order dated
12/12/2007 of Hon ble LG., (ANNEXURE B), All acquired land on which
possession has not been taken by the government and compensation has not
been received by the land owners will be treated as private land in r/o
these unauthorized colonies and All lands vested in Gram Sabha u/s 81 of
DLR Act will be treated as private land
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 3 of 8
unless possession has not been taken by the government. It is further
submitted that STF was constituted vide Lt. Governor order dated
30/03/2011, under the chairmanship of area SDM and STF was also assigned
task to deal with the permission of repair and maintenances of
buildings/structures already existed. Accordingly when Smt. Krishna
Kumari made application for raising/repairing of boundary wall, the same
was taken in the meeting dated 19/07/2011 and permission for the same was
granted by STF. (ANNEXURE C) However, as soon as information regarding
dispute of subject land was received in the office, the Permission was
cancelled immediately vide order dated 19/08/2011, hence allegations made
by Petitioner is baseless and afterthoughts and denied.
.. Although it is admitted that Kh. No.103/23/2 is acquired but neither
possession of the land was taken nor any compensation was released for
the same to any person by LAC. As regards, Kh. No.103/24, earlier was a
private land, vested u/s 81 of DLR Act 1954, whose possession was not
taken over by Gram Sabha, As this Khasra no. also falls in unauthorized
colony under regularization as per PRC0961. As per details submitted by
RWA to Urban Development Deptt. (copy of same is also available on UD
website) as per available record, it is submitted that Possession of said
land is not taken by Gaon Sabha. As per order dated 12/12/2007 of
Hon ble LG Delhi, in r/o Govt. and Private land for unauthorized colonies
under regularization, the land which has been vested u/s 81 of DLR Act,
1954 and no possession is taken over by Gaon Sabha, will be considered as
private land and the land in question is vested u/s 81 of DLR Act, 1954
and
no possession is taken over by the Gaon Sabha.
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 4 of 8
4. It would thus be seen from the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2
that land in question was acquired by the Government though its
possession was not taken and compensation has not been taken by the land
owners. The Administrative Order dated 12.12.2007 referred to in the
reply of respondents 1 and 2 to the extent it is relevant reads as
under:-
In accordance with Para 2.2 of the revised Guidelines-2007 for
Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi as received from the
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India under letter No.0-
33011/2/94-DDIIB-Vol.-XI dated 5th October, 2007, the Lieutenant Governor
of the NCT of Delhi, is pleased to define the government/Public land
and/or private land as follows:-
1. Land under acquisition proceedings
Government Land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been
given, and the landowners have received the compensation, irrespective of
current physical possession.
Private land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given
but the landowners have not taken the compensation and are retaining the
physical possession.
2. Gaon Sabha land
Government land: All lands originally vested in the Gaon Sabha at the
commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, irrespective of the
physical possession on ground and all lands subsequently vested in the
Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the aforesaid Act, where the physical
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 5 of 8
possession is with the Government.
Private Land: All lands vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 where the physical possession is with the
original landowners
5. The order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
does not indicate as to in exercise of which powers such an order was
passed. Nothing in law prevents the Government from taking possession of
the land which has been duly acquired by it under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact, Section 16 of the said Act specifically
empowers the Collector to take possession of the land which thereupon
would vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. If
the Government is of the view that any land acquired by it is no more
required for the purpose for which it was acquired, nothing prevents the
Government from withdrawing from the acquisition in terms of Section 48
of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. Section 81 of Delhi Reforms Act provides that a Bhumidhar or an
Asami shall be liable to be ejected on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the
land owner, as the case may be, for using any land for any purpose other
than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal
husbandry. The
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 6 of 8
Revenue Assistant can also eject such a Bhumidhar or an Asami on receipt
of information in this regard or on his own motion. Neither the
statutory right of Gaon Sabha to eject a Bhumidhar or an Asami using land
for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture,
horticulture or animal husbandry, by filing a suit in this regard, nor
the right of the Revenue Assistant to eject such a Bhumidhar or an Asami,
can be taken away by way of an Administrative order such as an order
dated 12.12.2007.
7. The case of the respondents is that on an application filed by Smt.
Krishna Kumari Thakran, alleging removal of some parts of the boundary
wall, she was allowed to raise the said boundary wall. We have perused
the photographs of land in question filed with the petition. It appears
to us from a perusal of these photographs that it was not a case of
repair of boundary wall or reconstructing certain removed parts of the
boundary wall. It appears to us that an altogether new boundary wall has
been constructed pursuant to the permission granted by the concerned SDM.
No fresh boundary wall in the garb of repair of an existing boundary wall
or reconstructing certain removed portions of an existing boundary wall
could have been constructed pursuant to the permission granted by the
SDM.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of this petition
with a
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 7 of 8
direction to the respondents to take due action in accordance with law
for removal of the new boundary wall, if any constructed on the strength
of the permission granted by the concerned SDM. We, however, make it
clear that due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person would be
given by the respondents before taking action in terms of this petition.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 10, 2013
BG
W.P.(C) 5329/2012
PITAM JANKALYAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Deb Nandan, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajiv Nanda and Ms Shawna, Advs. for Respondents 1,2 and 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
O R D E R
10.04.2013
This petition in public interest has been filed by Pitam Jankalyan
Samiti, alleging construction of boundary wall on public land comprising
Khasra No. 103/23-24 of Village Karala. It is alleged in the petition
that respondent No. 3, who was earlier posted as SDM in connivance with
the land grabbers, allowed construction of boundary wall upon public land
by one Dr. Krishna Kumari Thakran. When a complaint of illegal
construction of public land and its grabbing was made, respondent No. 3
cancelled the permission granted by him. The petitioner has, therefore,
sought a direction to the respondents to remove encroachment on the
aforesaid public land.
2. In its reply, respondent No. 4, who is the SHO of the concerned
area,
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 1 of 8
has stated as under:-
It is submitted that Smt. Sheela Devi had given a complaint to the
police wherein she alleged that her land of Khasra No.103/23/2, Rajiv
Nagar, Phase-II, Delhi is lying for many years. The measurement of this
land is 2 bigha 5 biswa i.e. about 2520 sq. yards and out of this land
about 1260 sq. yards belongs to her jeth Rajinder Singh and was sold to
the same by her father-in-law. Dealer Arun Thakran and Ram Kala started
to claim the owner of her land themselves when she went to clean her land
and she was threatened. Lateron, on the basis of the complaint ASI Ram
Kishore was deputed to conduct the inquiry and after inquiry, it was
found that Sh.Hoshiyar Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o Village and P.O.
Karala, Delhi was the landlord of Khasra no.103/23/2, Rajiv Nagar, Phase-
II, Delhi and he was the father-in-law of complainant Sheela. Sh.
Hoshiyar Singh had sold the land i.e. Plot No.C-8 to C-12 measuring area
880 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/18/1, 17, Plot No.C-13 to C-16 measuring
area 400 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, 24, Plot No.C-17-A to C-20,
measuring area 800 sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, situated at Village
Karala, Delhi to one Sh. Kishan Chand S/o Tokh Ram R/o 313, V.P.O. Deoli
on 27.3.1989, who in turn sold the plot no.C-8 to C-12, area measuring
180 sq. yards of Khasra No.103/18/1, 17, Plot No.C-13 to C-16, area 400
sq. yards, Khasra No.103/23/2, 24 and Plot No.C-17-A to C-20, area 800
sq. yards Khasra No.103/23/2/24 located at Village Karala, Delhi to Sh.
Virender Singh Thakran S/o Hoshiyar Singh through registered General
Power of Attorney, but the name of the owner was not entered by way of
mutation in the revenue records. The complainant is wrongly claiming
herself to be the owner of the land whereas her father-in-law had already
sold the said land and Dr.Krishna Kumar Thakran wife of
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 2 of 8
Sh.Virender Singh Thakran obtained the permission for erecting boundary
wall over the said land and after getting the permission she erected
boundary wall over the said land and after getting the permission she
erected boundary wall over the property. As the father-in-law of the
complainant has already sold the property and the alleged land was
finally purchased by Virender Singh Thakran and he is in possession since
1.9.2002 and the claim of the claimant Sheela Devi is false. Hence the
complainant of Sheela Devi has been filed. It is further submitted that
police has taken action and conducted inquiry on the complaint of Smt.
Sheela Devi.
3. In their reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated as under:
The permission was granted by the STF team in the meeting held in this
regard on 19/07/2011 on the basis of application of Smt. Krishna Kumari
for repairing/raising the already existing boundary wall. Copy of
Application made by Smt.Krishna Kumari is enclosed as Annexure A.
Subsequently, the applicant (Smt. Krishna Kumari) had submitted
registered GPA document as proof of ownership. It is important here that
the land in question fall in the Unauthorised Colony Rajeev Nagar, Ph. II
(Provisional Registration No.961) and Sher Singh Enclave (Provisional
Registration No.923) and the same is Governed and protected by Govt. of
NCT OF Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Act 2011, for taking any
legal action. It is also submitted that as per the order dated
12/12/2007 of Hon ble LG., (ANNEXURE B), All acquired land on which
possession has not been taken by the government and compensation has not
been received by the land owners will be treated as private land in r/o
these unauthorized colonies and All lands vested in Gram Sabha u/s 81 of
DLR Act will be treated as private land
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 3 of 8
unless possession has not been taken by the government. It is further
submitted that STF was constituted vide Lt. Governor order dated
30/03/2011, under the chairmanship of area SDM and STF was also assigned
task to deal with the permission of repair and maintenances of
buildings/structures already existed. Accordingly when Smt. Krishna
Kumari made application for raising/repairing of boundary wall, the same
was taken in the meeting dated 19/07/2011 and permission for the same was
granted by STF. (ANNEXURE C) However, as soon as information regarding
dispute of subject land was received in the office, the Permission was
cancelled immediately vide order dated 19/08/2011, hence allegations made
by Petitioner is baseless and afterthoughts and denied.
.. Although it is admitted that Kh. No.103/23/2 is acquired but neither
possession of the land was taken nor any compensation was released for
the same to any person by LAC. As regards, Kh. No.103/24, earlier was a
private land, vested u/s 81 of DLR Act 1954, whose possession was not
taken over by Gram Sabha, As this Khasra no. also falls in unauthorized
colony under regularization as per PRC0961. As per details submitted by
RWA to Urban Development Deptt. (copy of same is also available on UD
website) as per available record, it is submitted that Possession of said
land is not taken by Gaon Sabha. As per order dated 12/12/2007 of
Hon ble LG Delhi, in r/o Govt. and Private land for unauthorized colonies
under regularization, the land which has been vested u/s 81 of DLR Act,
1954 and no possession is taken over by Gaon Sabha, will be considered as
private land and the land in question is vested u/s 81 of DLR Act, 1954
and
no possession is taken over by the Gaon Sabha.
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 4 of 8
4. It would thus be seen from the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2
that land in question was acquired by the Government though its
possession was not taken and compensation has not been taken by the land
owners. The Administrative Order dated 12.12.2007 referred to in the
reply of respondents 1 and 2 to the extent it is relevant reads as
under:-
In accordance with Para 2.2 of the revised Guidelines-2007 for
Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi as received from the
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India under letter No.0-
33011/2/94-DDIIB-Vol.-XI dated 5th October, 2007, the Lieutenant Governor
of the NCT of Delhi, is pleased to define the government/Public land
and/or private land as follows:-
1. Land under acquisition proceedings
Government Land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been
given, and the landowners have received the compensation, irrespective of
current physical possession.
Private land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given
but the landowners have not taken the compensation and are retaining the
physical possession.
2. Gaon Sabha land
Government land: All lands originally vested in the Gaon Sabha at the
commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, irrespective of the
physical possession on ground and all lands subsequently vested in the
Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the aforesaid Act, where the physical
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 5 of 8
possession is with the Government.
Private Land: All lands vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 where the physical possession is with the
original landowners
5. The order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
does not indicate as to in exercise of which powers such an order was
passed. Nothing in law prevents the Government from taking possession of
the land which has been duly acquired by it under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact, Section 16 of the said Act specifically
empowers the Collector to take possession of the land which thereupon
would vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. If
the Government is of the view that any land acquired by it is no more
required for the purpose for which it was acquired, nothing prevents the
Government from withdrawing from the acquisition in terms of Section 48
of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. Section 81 of Delhi Reforms Act provides that a Bhumidhar or an
Asami shall be liable to be ejected on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the
land owner, as the case may be, for using any land for any purpose other
than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal
husbandry. The
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 6 of 8
Revenue Assistant can also eject such a Bhumidhar or an Asami on receipt
of information in this regard or on his own motion. Neither the
statutory right of Gaon Sabha to eject a Bhumidhar or an Asami using land
for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture,
horticulture or animal husbandry, by filing a suit in this regard, nor
the right of the Revenue Assistant to eject such a Bhumidhar or an Asami,
can be taken away by way of an Administrative order such as an order
dated 12.12.2007.
7. The case of the respondents is that on an application filed by Smt.
Krishna Kumari Thakran, alleging removal of some parts of the boundary
wall, she was allowed to raise the said boundary wall. We have perused
the photographs of land in question filed with the petition. It appears
to us from a perusal of these photographs that it was not a case of
repair of boundary wall or reconstructing certain removed parts of the
boundary wall. It appears to us that an altogether new boundary wall has
been constructed pursuant to the permission granted by the concerned SDM.
No fresh boundary wall in the garb of repair of an existing boundary wall
or reconstructing certain removed portions of an existing boundary wall
could have been constructed pursuant to the permission granted by the
SDM.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of this petition
with a
W.P.(C) 5329/2012 Page 7 of 8
direction to the respondents to take due action in accordance with law
for removal of the new boundary wall, if any constructed on the strength
of the permission granted by the concerned SDM. We, however, make it
clear that due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person would be
given by the respondents before taking action in terms of this petition.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 10, 2013
BG
