9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the legality of amendments made to Rules 49, 63, 65, and 67, as well as Form P5 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules by the Delhi Administration, and whether these amendments are ultra vires of the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. Rule 49 Amendment: The old and new versions of Rule 49 regarding inspection tours by the patwari were compared. The new rule added a provision excluding land in the extended abadi from the rule's application. The High Court held that this amendment was contrary to the Land Revenue Act, emphasizing the importance of recording actual possession in the record-of-rights. Rule 63 Amendment: The High Court noted that the amendments to Rule 63 excluded certain categories of land from the rule's application, preventing the recording of possession of individuals in these areas in the record-of-rights. This classification of land by the rule-making authority was deemed inconsistent with the Act's provisions. Rule 65A and Rule 67 Amendments: Rule 65A was substituted to address vacant or uncultivated land entries, while sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 67 were omitted. The High Court found these amendments liable to be quashed on the same grounds as the other rules, as they would adversely affect the rights of tenure holders and sub-tenure holders. Form P5 Amendment: The amendment to Form P5 was also challenged, and the High Court held that by amending the rules and Form P5, the rule-making authority had exceeded its power conferred by the Land Reforms Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash and set aside the impugned rules, ruling that the amendments exceeded the authority granted by the Land Revenue Act. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Delhi Administration were dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
