1973 (2) TMI 133 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of civil courts under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
2. Interpretation of "holding" and "waste land" under the Act.
3. Validity of orders by the Revenue Assistant.
4. Civil court's authority to declare bhumidari rights.
5. Conflict between decisions of different judges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954:
The primary issue was whether civil courts have jurisdiction to try suits concerning land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Section 185(1) of the Act explicitly states that civil courts have no jurisdiction except as provided by or under the Act. The Supreme Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh (1970) held that the Act is a complete Code, and civil courts cannot entertain suits for declarations of bhumidari rights or related reliefs. The Revenue Assistant is the competent authority for such matters. This principle was reaffirmed in Mukhfaria vs. Rama Shankar (1972).

2. Interpretation of "Holding" and "Waste Land" Under the Act:
The interpretation of "holding" and "waste land" was crucial. D.K. Kapur, J. in various decisions, interpreted "holding" as denoting property owned by a proprietor and not necessarily used for agriculture. He concluded that land classified as "banjar qadim" or "ghair murnkin" did not fall under the Act's purview until used for agriculture. However, this interpretation was found to be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling that all land types, including banjar qadim and ghair murnkin, are covered by the Act.

3. Validity of Orders by the Revenue Assistant:
Several suits challenged the validity of orders by the Revenue Assistant, particularly the inclusion of lands in L.R. Form No. 2 and their vesting in the Gaon Sabha. The Supreme Court in Hatti's case clarified that such challenges should be addressed through the mechanisms provided within the Act, specifically through applications to the Revenue Assistant, not civil suits.

4. Civil Court's Authority to Declare Bhumidari Rights:
The civil courts' authority to declare bhumidari rights was a recurring issue. The Supreme Court in Hatti's case ruled that applications for bhumidari declarations fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant under Item 4 of Schedule I of the Act. Civil courts are barred from entertaining suits seeking such declarations.

5. Conflict Between Decisions of Different Judges:
There was a noted conflict between the decisions of D.K. Kapur, J. and the Supreme Court's rulings. Kapur, J. held that civil courts could entertain suits for declarations regarding the inclusion of land in L.R. Form No. 2 and vesting orders by the Revenue Assistant. However, the Division Bench, following the Supreme Court's precedent, concluded that such suits are not maintainable in civil courts. The Division Bench emphasized that the Act is a complete Code, and all disputes regarding bhumidari rights and related matters must be resolved within the framework provided by the Act.

Conclusion:
The Division Bench, adhering to the Supreme Court's rulings, held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits concerning declarations of bhumidari rights or challenges to the Revenue Assistant's orders under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The appropriate forum for such disputes is the Revenue Assistant, as specified in the Act. Consequently, the suits in the ten appeals were dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout.