9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and from the operation of the Act, the amendments aforementioned deserves to be held to be bad in law and beyond the authority of the rule making power. For the self same reason, the amendment of form P.5 also cannot be sustained and as to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do by allowing these petitions. We direct the respondents to maintain the record of rights, including the Annual Register, in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, without taking into consideration the amendments carried out to Rules 49, 63 and form P.5 by virtue of the Delhi Land Revenue (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 1989, as notified on 30th November, 1989. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. '' For a perusal of the complete Judgment reference is directed to Balbir Singh vs . ADM(Revenue) and Others, 57(1995)DLT547 DB. 2. The Respondents had filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of by Judgment dated May 5, 2000 in which the aforementioned Judgment of the Division Bench was upheld and it was observed, inter alia, as follows: ''According to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue authorities were not recording the possession of the land in the revenue record the appellant was forced to file a writ petition, being writ petition no. 3699/91. It is the case of the appellant that in that writ petition the appellant had called in question the amendment carried out in the Rules. That writ petition came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench held sub rule (5) of Rule 63 to be ultra vires. The matter was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The net result of the litigation was that the revenue authorities were bound to record the possession of the persons holding the land. The revenue authority by interpreting the judgment of this court in writ petition no. 3699/91 was of the opinion that it was bound to record the possession of the appellant without going into the fact whether actually the appellant was in possession of the land or not. It misunderstood the decision of this Court and recorded the possession of the appellant in Khasra Girdhawari of the year 1997-98. The entries, however, were reversed by the revenue authorities subsequently, as according to them it was fund that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue authority to hold an enquiry with regard to the issue whether the appellant is in cultivatory possession of the land in question. In case the appellant is found to be in possession of the land, the revenue authority shall act in accordance with law. Before passing any order the concerned revenue authority shall hear the appellant, Gaon Sabha and the Horticulture Department. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.'' 4. In opposition to the contempt petition it has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the Respondents have not disobeyed the Orders dated 17.1.1995 of the Division Bench of this Court. It has been pleaded inter alias that there is ''no direction to the answering respondent to make any entry in the revenue record regarding cultivatory possession of the Petitioner from 1983 till 2000. Moreover so far as the question of making an entry in the revenue record is concerned, it is done by the Patwari on partial that is on site in question and further such entries cannot be made for last 17 years in respect of waste lands which belong to the Gram Sabha for common use of the villagers''. Secondly, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in one year, i.e. on or before 16.1.1996. This stance and argument leaves this Court with no alternative but to find the Respondents guilty of willful disobedience of the Orders of the Division Bench should it be concluded that the Petition does not warrant dismissal on the grounds of prescription. Clearly, the Respondents were aware that they should have complied with the Judgment of the Division Bench as no stay against its operation had been passed by the Apex Court. As has been said earlier, the Petitioner has demonstrated a share and store of maturity which is not often encountered in Court proceedings. The argument of Mr. Shali also places a cloud on the submission that the Khasra Girdawari i.e. Form P-4 had been duly drawn up from the year 1985-86 onwards i.e. Annexures R-1 to R-15. This is for the reason that on the merits of the case it has been contended that the Orders dated 17.1.1995 have been duly complied with. The objection of limitation is, Therefore, wholly otiose and unnecessary. Furthermore, the Respondents are statutorily obligated to ''maintain the record of rights including the Annual Register, in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt petition was preferred on the ground that it was not correctly prepared and Therefore violated the concerned Order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following pronouncement: ''It is seen that once there is any order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong o may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. That cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge can not be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly b the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties., The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as t what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the State of Andhra Pradesh and/or officers of State of Andhra Pradesh for non-payment of the amount in question. Unless and until the Court is satisfied that there has been a deliberate violation of any positive direction, the question of initiating any contempt proceedings or taking any action against any party under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act does not arise. Having regard to the facts including the order passed by this Court, already referred to, we do not see any justification for initiating or taking any action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. This contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed. . Dismissal of the contempt petition, however, will not debar the applicant to agitate the claim before an appropriate forum, if the applicant is . . really entitled to any sum and the forum on being approached, will dispose of the matter in accordance with law.'' 8. The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, was enacted ''to provide for modification of zamindar system so as to create an uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries''. This statute does not have the objective of confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for value at any time before the 28th day of October, 1956, for purpose other than those mentioned in clause (13) of section 3. (ii)''lands of common utility'' shall include such lands as are recorded as such at the last settlement or have been or would have been customarily recorded as such on 1st July, 1950. (2) On the commencement of this Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass an order in respect of the proprietor or proprietors of each village either singly or collectively divesting the individual proprietor or proprietors of the rights mentioned in sub-section (1) and vesting those rights in the Gaon Sabha, or in any person or authority appointed by the Chief Commissioner under section 161 with effect from the commencement of this Act and stating that a compensation equal in value to four times the amount of annual land revenue assessed at the last settlement for the cultivable and uncultivable waste area of the village shall be paid by the government to the proprietor or proprietors concerned. If no such assessment of land revenue was made at the last settlement the rate of land revenue applied at the last settlement for similar areas in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the tenure holder and or sub-tenure holder Columns 4 and 5- (1) Entries in columns 4 and 5 shall be made from the Khatauni of the current year. Patwaries are prohibited from making any changes except on the basis of an order from a competent authority and recorded already in the current years Khatauni. Such a change shall be recorded in red ink in the relevant column and the relevant order quoted in columns 7, 8, 9 and 10 of . the quadrennium Khatauni shall be reproduced in the remarks column of the Khasra. Explanation-The term tenure-holder or sub-tenure holder does not include a purchaser for fruits or flowers, who is to be shown only in the column of remarks with brief details of his lease. (2) If there is more than one tenure holder or sub-tenure holder included in a Khatauni-khata the name of all the tenure holders and sub-tenure holders shall be entered against the first plot of the khata but against the subsequent plots should be entered only the first name followed by a reference to the first plot of the khata. (3) If a person other than the one recorded in columns 4 and 5 of Form P-4 is found to be in actual cultivatory occu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for 1981-82 mentions the Petitioner as the tenure holder; probably because of his three years prior possession. It appears that the Petitioner had initiated proceedings in which, by the Orders of the Revenue Assistant dated 3-1-1981 the Petitioner had been declared the bhoomidar under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. However, this Pronouncement was set aside by the First Appellate Court of the Additional Collector, Delhi in terms of the Order dated 6-5-1983, which was affirmed by the Second Appellate Court of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi by his Order dated 22-9-1983. The reasoning of the Appellate Courts was that the limitation of three years would expire on 30th June, 1981, and Therefore the three year period had not expired. These documents have been placed on this Court's record as Annexures R-16 and R-17 of the affidavit of Shri Arun Mishra, who was the SDM-Revenue Assistant at that time, that is November, 2000 . It should be underscored that all the necessary documents were available to the officer for his perusal. This leads to the inescapable and incontrovertible conclusion that at least between 1977 and 1982 t e Petitioner was in possession (even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Gaon Sabha land must be recorded in he Khasra Girdawari. It was the Respondent's failure to adhere to this practice which was frowned upon and found to be illegal by the Judgment dated 17.1.1995 of the Division Bench, which was confirmed by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5th May, 2000. This is the gravamen of this Judgment; yet the very arguments that had been rejected are being regurgitated. The ejectment of an unauthorised or illegal person can only be effected by resort to these Sections and not by the device of refusing to record the name of the person in actual possession. It is the common case that a petition under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the Petitioner has been filed in or around August 2000 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant. It also lends considerable credence to the submission of the Petitioner that despite their several oral and written requests their alleged cultivatory possession was deliberately not recorded by the Respondents. This is a devious drama for dispossession, enacted by the Administration. 14. The Petitioner has filed certified copies of the Khasra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eadings in response to t is petition, already quoted above, are deliberately misleading. I am also aware of the legal presumption in favor of the correctness of revenue records but this is not an unimpeachable presumption. When a matter has been argued threadbare, it would become the bounden duty of the Court to return a finding on this topic, rather than circumventing and procrastinating this duty by sending the parties to a Civil Court. 15. It is in this analysis that the sundry following conclusions are arrived at. Firstly, that there is no limitation for proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Such proceedings are imperative where the law enforcers and law -keepers become law transgressors, somewhat like Jekyll and Hyde. In this case it is my considered opinion that the Respondents had discontinued recording the possession of the Petitioner pursuant to amendments carried out in 1983 which were subsequently struck down by the Division Bench in 1995. It was expected of the Respondents to correct their error in 1995. Instead of doing so they have compounded the mistake by continuing to adopt the position that the land in question was barren or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
