9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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, . 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 Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, there is one class of tenure holder, that is to say, BHUMIDAR, and one class of sub-tenure holder, that is . to say, ASAMI, and their rights and liabilities are mentioned in Section 5 of the said Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 f und that the appellant was not in possession of the land. The appellant, being aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities then filed another writ petition on the ground that the possession of the appellant ought to have been recorded in the revenue record. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance 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 alia 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 partal 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 been contended that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 mandates that a grievance pertaining to the disobedience of any Order must be filed within one year of its passing. It has further been averred that the ''land under reference has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act and the Delhi Land Revenue Rules year by year''. Each and every non-compliance, therefore, would attract and sustain the charge or complaint of holding the Judgment dated 17.1.1995 of the Division Bench of this Court in contempt. Therefore, even if a hyper-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 erits 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 Single Judge; the division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench. The appeals are accordingly dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter of if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady 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 confiscating the land-holding of any person actually cultivating it, regardless of whether such land is indubitably barren or waste land as is palpably clear from the highlighted and underlined provision of Section 7. Unless there is a manifestly evident power and intent to acquire the land with or without the payment of compensation, Article 300A of the Constitution would immediately get attracted and the provision would be liable to be struck down as ultra vires. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndividual 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 any other village in the same assessment circle shall be taken to be the rate of land revenue applicable to such areas or failing this the rate of land revenue applicable to such areas shall be computed at 75 per cent. of the land revenue assessed on the lowest class of soil in the village. (3) The amount of compensation shall be calculated separately for each village for the respective proprietor or proprietors in accordance with rules made under this Act and payments thereof shall be made in such number of annual Installment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 occupation of any field at the time of the partal his name and the crop shall be shown in Form P-5. Provided that no entry in Form P-5 shall be made if- (a) The field was not sown; or (b) The crop failed and the filed was not re-sown in the same season Explanation-For removal doubts it is hereby clarified that entries made in Form P-5 as aforesaid shall not be construed to be conferring any title or right on recognition of the cultivatory possession or evidence for such possession. (4) If a tenure holder or sub-tenure holder recorded in column 4 or 5, cases to be in possession, for any reason and no one else ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 uncontorvertable conclusion that at least between 1977 and 1982 t e Petitioner was in possession (even if unauthorised or illegal) of the lands in question and that these lands were not banjar or barren or waste, since they had been cultivated upon. Theoretically, the Gaon Sabha could have forcibly entered upon the possession of the land in the next year, but in that event a 'red-ink' entry in the Khasra Girdawari would have been essential, followed by the preparation of Form V and its attendant proceedings. Such documents have not seen the light of day. Alternatively, the Respondent could have initiated proceedings under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the Respondent as appears to have been done in August 2000. . 13. It is not a mere coinciden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 Girdawari for the years 1977-1983 evidencing his continuous possession. In column 4 thereof the Gaon Sabha has been mentioned as the tenure holder as classified in Part I of the Khatauni. In the year 1977-78 both the Kharif as well as Rabi crops had been sown; in 1978-79 Kharif; in 1979-80 Kharif and Rabi; in 1980-81 Rabi and in 1981-82 Kharif. In all these years the possession of the Petitioner, albeit allegedly illegal, had been record d. Mr. Bansal has drawn my attention to the fact that from 1991-92 till 1997 the Petitioner had received water from the Delhi Administration, Development Department, Minor Irrigation Division. Although Mr. Shali had made light of this submission as not sufficiently and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 subs quently 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 banjar and was in the possession of the Gaon Sabha. Where the rights of private individuals come into collision the Courts would not ordinarily take recourse to Article 215 where the period of limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act has expired. This is a classic case where Article 215 should be pressed into action since it is the Authorities are guilty of not implementing a Judgment in letter and spirit. Secondly, the failure to correctly fill up the Khasra Girdawari arises from year to year. The petition has been filed in July 2000 but the Khasra Girdawari for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 continue to reflect and record the possession of the Gaon Sabha and incorrectly depict the land in question as banjar. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
