After a region gets urbanised, the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not applicable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act: Supreme Court

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3828 OF 2017
MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS
AND ANOTHER  ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and orderdated 22nd  November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi holding that once the rural area is urbanized by issuance   of   a   notification   under   Section   507(a)   of   the   Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957(hereinafter being referred to as the“Act 1957”), it ceases to be governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1954”) in sequel thereto and held that the proceedings under Act,
1 1954   were  non   est  leaving   the   parties   to   agitate   their claims/disputes before appropriate fora clarifying that all pleas in law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriate forum. 
2. The facts in seriatim as manifest from the record are that one Maman   Singh   who   was   a   recorded   Bhumidhar   of   the   land admeasuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 M in village Samepur, Delhi as alleged, sold the land to one Bhai Ram vide registered   sale   deed   dated   9th  March,   1970.     The   respondents
Narain Singh and Som Dutt have purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from Shri Maman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4th  May, 1989.   Later, they applied for mutation under Act, 1954 and their names were mutated on 31st May, 1989.
3. It   has   been   pleaded   by   the   appellants   that   before   the registered sale deed dated 4th  May, 1989 came to be executed by Maman Singh in favour of the respondents herein and their names were mutated on 31st  May, 1989, the appellants had come intopossession over the subject land.  The appellants later challenged
the mutation order dated 31st  May, 1989 opened in favour of the
2 respondents   claiming   adverse   possession  by  filing  appeal  under Section 64 of the Act 1954.  After certain rounds of litigation, the
Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation passed in favour   of   the   respondents   by   Order   dated   10th  February,   1995 holding that the transfer was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, 1954 and further ordered the land in dispute to be vested in Gaon Sabha.
4. It   is   relevant   to   mention   that   the   Order   of   the   Financial Commissioner dated 10th February, 1995 wherein it was observed “land in dispute ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha” was never challenged by the appellants whereas the respondents challenged the Order dated 10th February, 1995 by filing Writ Petition(civil) No. 670 of 1995 before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 14th July, 2008 and that became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the respondents assailing in LPA No. 591 of 2008.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court returned a finding that once the notification dated 23rd April, 1982 has been published in exercise  of  power  under  Section   507(a)  of  the  Act,  1957 which
3 expressly urbanizes the subject land in question and brings within the scope and ambit of Act, 1957, it no more remains rural area thus, all proceedings under the Act, 1954 stand non est leaving the parties to agitate their claims/disputes before appropriate fora with a clarification that all the pleas in law shall remain available to the
parties   before   the   appropriate   fora   which   may   be   adopted   for redressal   of   grievance   under   judgment   impugned   dated   22nd November, 2012 which is subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
6. In this context, it may be noticed that respondents Narain Singh and Som Dutt had filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction.  The matter at the stage of temporary jurisdiction travelled to this Court in a
special leave petition filed at the instance of respondents which was dismissed by Order dated 23rd January, 1992 with a direction to the revenue   authorities   to   decide   the   matter   in   four   months. Subsequently,   by   order   dated   2nd  September,   1992,   this   Court directed   the   concerned   SHO   to   hand   over   possession   to   the
4 appellants   herein   and   pursuant   to   Order   of   this   Court,   the appellants are in possession of the subject land in question.
7. The main thrust of submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   is   that   apart   from   the   order passed   by   this   Court   dated   2nd  September,   1992   to   hand   over possession of the subject land to the appellants, it can further be supported from the notice issued under Section 81 by SDM to the
present appellants dated 18th  January, 1984 which indicates that the appellants are in possession.
8. Learned counsel further submits that once Maman Singh had sold the land by registered sale deed in favour of Bhai Ram on 9thMarch,   1970   and   handed   over   possession   thereof,   he   (Maman Singh) had no right, title and interest to execute the successive sale deed and he could not hand over possession to the respondents of
the subject land.   That apart, the possession handed over to the appellants has been upheld.
9. Learned counsel further submits that after taking holistic view of   the   Act,   1954   and   of   Act   1957,   even   after   declaration   of urbanization by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the
5 Act 1957, it will not cease the right of the parties inter se conferred under provisions of the Act 1954.  There is no provision under the
Act,   1957   which   may   suggest   issuance   of   the   notification   of urbanizing under Section 507(a) of the Act ceases automatically the provisions of the Act 1954.  That apart, Section 150(3) of the Act, 1954 specifically provides for the consequences when whole of Gaon Sabha cease to be a rural area by virtue of Section 507 of the Act,
1957.   The consequence of dissolution of Gaon Sabha and subclause (e) of Section 150(3) specifically says that the provisions of this Act, 1954 shall apply.
10. Learned counsel submits that the Act, 1954 is one such law which is a special Act relating to land reforms by virtue of Section 1(2) which extends to the whole of the UT of Delhi.   The area covered under Act, 1957 is not so excluded.   It creates rights of tenure holders and Bhumidhar within the ambit of Section 5 and such rights can be acquired in various ways.   Under Chapter III, Section C relates to user of land and Section D pertains to transfer of land by Bhumidhar and Section E pertains to devolution and
6 Section F pertains to partition.  Thus, Act, 1954 is a special code pertaining to the rights of Bhumidhar and other tenure holders.11. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the Act, 1957 is   concerned,   it   is   the   Act   which   deals   with   Delhi   Municipal Corporation.  There is nothing in the Act, 1957 to suggest that it
purports to regulate the tenure of Bhumidhar in the UT of Delhi after the urbanization of area is notified.  Since the purport of Act, 1957   is   not   to   govern   the   holding   of   the   tenure,   it   has   been specifically provided by Section 502 that other laws are not to be
disregarded for the time being in force.  
12. In   substance,   learned   counsel   submits   that   Act,   1954 continues to operate even after urbanization under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 and further submits that the finding returned by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not
legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance
on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Om   Prakash   Agarwal   andOthers Vs. Batara Behera and Others1
.
1 1999(3) SCC 231
713. Learned counsel further submits that the Division Bench of
the High Court has not taken note of the earlier view expressed by
the Division Bench of the High Court in Umed Singh Vs. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi and Others2
 and that the earlier Division Bench of
the High Court also considered the scheme of Act, 1957 and Act,
1954 and has returned a finding that on issuance of notification
under Section 507(a) of the Act 1957, it may not cease the rights of
the parties inter se existing under the Act, 1954 and, in the given
circumstances, judgment needs to be interfered with by this Court.
14. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, submits that the respondents Narain Singh and Som
Dutt purchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from
the Bhumidhar Maman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4th
May, 1989.   So far as the right, title and interest on the subject
property is concerned, it vested in favour of the respondents.  The
registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1989 has never been questioned
by Bhai Ram who could be said to be the person aggrieved by the
subsequent sale transaction as has been alleged by the appellants.
2 1997 SCCOnline Del 842
8
Even the right claimed by the appellants of adverse possession is a
weak right and not legally sustainable.  In this regard, the civil suit
which has been filed at their instance is practically a non­starter
because of pendency of the present appeal still the appellants have
no right, title and interest over the subject property in question.
15. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the scheme of
the   Act,   1954   and   of   Act,   1957,   while   harmonizing,   both   are
governed   in   different   fields   and   once   the   notification   has   been
published under Section 507(a) declaring the land to be urbanized,
which in the instant case is not disputed, the mutation proceedings
pending under the Act, 1954 stand ceased as the land does not
exist to be rural area and, thus, no error has been committed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in returning a finding that all
mutation   proceedings   stand   ceased   after   the   publication   of   the
notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957.
16. Learned counsel further submits that this is the consistent
view   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   and   apart   from   the   judgment
impugned,   this   very   question   and   effect   of   issuance   of   the
notification   under   Section   507(a)   of   the   Act,   1957   was   earlier
9
examined by the High Court in  Smt.   Indu   Khorana  Vs.   Gram
Sabha and Others3 which was decided on 26th March, 2010 and
after examining the scheme of Act, 1954 and Act, 1957, it was held
that once the rural area is declared to be urbanized by issuance of
notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, provisions of the
Act, 1954 cease to apply.
17. Learned counsel further submits that after the matter being
examined by the Division Bench of the High Court by two different
Benches, this being consistently followed in the later judgments by
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   and   unless   this   Court   comes   to   the
conclusion that interpretation as exposed of the Act, 1954 and Act,
1957 are completely perverse and unsustainable, ordinarily may
not be interfered with by this Court.
18. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the present
respondents are concerned, despite holding right, title and interest
in the subject land in question, pursuant to the registered sale deed
dated 4th May, 1989, and their name being mutated at one stage on
31st May, 1989, in the given circumstances, at least appellants have
no legal right to hold possession of the subject land although the
3 2010 SCCOnline DEL 1334
10
suit has been filed at the instance of the respondents and submits
that this Court may consider to restore possession in favour of the
respondents   to   avoid   multiplicity   of   litigation   in   the   interest   of
justice.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
20. The factual matrix which has come on record is not disputed
between   the   parties.     The   question   of   law   that   raised   for
consideration is that once the rural area is urbanized by issuance of
notification   under   the   Act   1957,   what   will   be   the   effect   to   the
provisions of the Act, 1954 in sequel thereto.
21. We   would   like   to   take   a   bird’s   eye   view   of   the   relevant
provision   of   the   Acts   to   examine   the   question   raised   for   our
consideration.
22. The Act, 1954 was enacted with an object to create a uniform
body   of   peasant   proprietors   without   intermediaries,   for   the
unification   of   the   tenancy   laws   in   force   in   Delhi   and   to   make
provisions for other matters connected therewith.
11
23. Section   1(2)   of   the   Act,   1954   extends   to   the   whole   Union
Territory   of   Delhi,   but   shall   not   apply   to   the   areas   notified   in
Section 1(2)(a) of the Act, 1954, i.e. such an area which are or may
before the first day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality
or a notified area under the relevant Acts.
24. It may be apposite to take note of the relevant provisions of the
Act before we appreciate the effect and ambit of Act, 1954 which are
as follows:­
“1. (I) This Act may be called the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
 (2) It extends to the whole of the Union territory of Delhi, but shall
not apply to­ 
(a) the areas which are or may before the first day
of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality or a
Notified   Area   under   the   provisions   of   the   Punjab
Municipal   Act   1911,   or   a   Cantonment   under   the
provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924,
3. Definitions. ­ In this Act, unless the Context otherwise requires­ 
(1) to (4)…..
''(5) "Delhi town" means the areas which immediately before the
establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were included
in the limits of Delhi Municipality, Civil Station Notified Area, West
Delhi Municipality and the Fort Notified Area; 
(6) to (12)….
(l3)   "land"   except   in   sections   23   and   24,   means   land   held   or
occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or
12
animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and
includes­ 
(a) buildings appurtenant thereto, 
(b) village abadis, 
(c) grovelands, 
(d) lands for village pasture or land covered by water
and used for growing singharas and other produce or
land   in   the   bed   of   a   river   and   used   for   casual  or
occasional cultivation, 
but does not includeland occupied by buildings in belts of areas adjacent
to Dehi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by a
notification   in   the   Official   Gazette   declare   as   an
acquisition thereto;
150. (1) & (2)…. 
(3) If the whole of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural
areas as defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, by
virtue of a notification under section 507 of that Act, the  Gaon
Sabha  constituted for that area shall thereupon stand dissolved
and on such dissolution,­ 
(a)   all   properties,   movable   and   immovable,   and   all
interests   of   whatsoever   nature   and   kind   therein
including   moneys   held   in  Gaon   Sabha  Area   Fund,
vested in the Gaon Sabha immediately before such
dissolution,   shall,   with   all   rights   of   whatsoever
description,   used,   enjoyed   or   possessed   by  Gaon
Sabha, vest in the Central Government; 
(b) all duties, obligations and liabilities incurred, all
contracts   entered   into   and   all   matters   and   things
engaged to be done by, with or for the  Gaon Sabha
before such dissolution shall be deemed to have been
incurred, entered into or engaged to be done with or
for the Central Government; 
(c) all rates, taxes, fees, rents and other charges due to
the  Gaon Sabha  immediately before such dissolution
shall be deemed to be due to the Central Government; 
13
(d) all suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings
instituted or which might have been instituted by or
against   the  Gaon   Sabha  may   be   continued   or
instituted by or against the Union of India; 
(e) the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to
lands in such Gaon Sabha area, not being lands vested
in the Central Government clause (a), subject to the
modification   that   references   therein   to  Gaon   Sabha
and Gaon Panchayat shall be construed as references
to the Central Government; 
(f) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of
sub­section (2) of section 1, the provisions of sections
84, 85, 86A and 87 and any other provision of this Act
relating to ejectment of persons shall apply in relation
to   lands   vested   in   the   Central   Government   under
clause (a) subject to the modification that references
therein to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayat shall be
construed as references to the Central Government.
(4) If only a portion of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in
rural   areas   as   aforesaid   the   jurisdiction   of   the  Gaon   Sabha
constituted for that area shall cease in respect of that portion and
upon such cesser, the provisions of clause (a) to (f) of sub­section
(3) shall apply to that portion as if the  Gaon Sabha  had been
constituted for that portion alone and dissolved, subject to such
incidental and consequential orders as the Chief Commissioner
may deem necessary to make. 
(5) If the size of a  Gaon Sabha  Area is reduced as a result of a
portion thereof ceasing to be included in rural areas as aforesaid
and the Chief Commissioner is of the opinion that the size of the
Gaon   Sabha  area   is   not   sufficiently   large   to   be   under   the
jurisdiction of a separate Gaon Sabha, he may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, declare that such Gaon Sabha area shall, from
a date to be specified in the notification, cease to be a separate
Gaon Sabha area and the Gaon Sabha constituted there for shall
stand dissolved and may direct that the said area shall be included
in one or more adjoining  Gaon Sabha  areas, and thereupon the
provisions of section 3 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 (Delhi
Act 3 of 1955), shall, so far as may be, apply.”
14
25. The combined reading of the relevant provisions referred to
hereinabove clearly indicates that the Act, 1954 will not cover such
area as defined in the first instance which may or before the first
day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality.   The ‘land’
which has been defined under Section 3(13) provides that except in
sections 23 and 24, such of the land held or occupied for purpose
connected   with   agriculture,   horticulture   or   animal   husbandry
including  pisciculture and  poultry  farming  and   further  includes
other categories which are part of land but at the same time, it does
not include land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent to
Delhi town.
26. ‘Delhi town’ has been defined under Section 3(5) of the Act
which   clearly   defines   that   areas   which   immediately   before   the
establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were included
in the limits of Delhi Municipality.  There is complete exclusion of
the land occupied by buildings adjacent to Delhi town which falls
before the establishment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is
not a land covered for the purpose by deciding rights of the parties
under tenure holder under Chapter II of the Act, 1954.
15
27. At the same time, Section 150(3), (4) and (5) of the Act indicate
that if the Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as
defined in the Act, 1957 by virtue of notification under Section 507
of the Act, the Gaon Sabha shall thereupon stand dissolved or if a
portion of Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as
aforesaid, the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha for that area ceases in
respect of that portion and for that portion stands dissolved or to
that extent, the size of the Gaon Sabha stands reduced as a result
of a portion ceasing to be included in rural area as aforesaid. 
28. Let us take a view of relevant provisions of Act, 1957 for the
present purpose which are as under:­
“2(52) "rural areas" means the areas of Delhi which immediately
before the establishment of a Corporation are situated within the
local limits of the District Board of Delhi established under the
Punjab District Boards Act, 1883 (Punjab Act 20 of 1883), but
shall   not   include   such   portion   thereof   as   may,   by   virtue   of   a
notification under section 507, cease to be included in the rural
areas as herein defined;
2(61) "urban areas" means the areas of Delhi which are not rural
areas;
502. Other laws not to be disregarded— Save as provided in this
Act,   nothing   contained   in   this   Act   shall   be   construed   as
authorising   the   disregard   by   a   Corporation   or   any   municipal
authority or any municipal officer or other municipal employee of
any law for the time being in force.
16
507.   Special   provisions   as   to   rural   areas.—   Notwithstanding
anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act,— 
(a)   a   Corporation   with   the   previous   approval   of   the
Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare that any portion of the rural areas shall cease to be
included therein and upon the issue of such notification
that   portion  shall   be   included   in   and   form   part   of   the
urban areas; 
(b)   a   Corporation   with   the   previous   approval   of   the
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,— 
(i) exempt the rural areas or any portion thereof from
such of the provisions of this Act as it deems fit, 
(ii) levy taxes, rates, fees and other charges in the rural
areas   or   any   portion   thereof   at   rates   lower   than
those at which such taxes, rates, fees and other
charges  are  levied  in the  urban  areas  or  exempt
such areas or portion from any such tax, rate, fee or
other charge.”
(c)   a Corporation shall pay a Gaon Sabha­
(i) an amount equal to the proceeds of the tax on
profession, trades, callings and employments, as
and when that tax is levied in the Gaon Sabha
area, and
(ii) an amount equal to such portion of the proceeds
of the property taxes on lands and buildings in that
area as may from time to time be determined by a
Corporation, after deducting the cost of collection
from such proceeds.
29. The Act, 1957 has been primarily enacted to have a uniform
body to administer the Delhi Municipal Corporation to consolidate
various bodies, local authorities, looking after the municipal affairs
and to centralise for better administration and to overcome the
17
problems   being   faced   by   various   authorities   as   well   as   by   the
public. 
30. Section 2(52) defines the ‘rural areas’ which demonstrates that
the area of Delhi which immediately before the establishment of a
Corporation, falls within the local limits of the District Board of
Delhi, be considered to be the rural area but that shall not include
such portion thereof which by virtue of notification under Section
507 declared to be urbanized and it ceases to be included under the
term ‘rural areas’ and Section 2(61) defines ‘urban areas’ as the
areas of Delhi which are not rural areas.  
31. To simplify it further, once there is a notification issued by the
competent   authority   in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   507(a)
which is a special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the
rural   areas   cease   to   be   included   therein   upon   issuance   of   the
notification and shall thereafter include in and form part of the
urban areas in terms of the notification.  Sub­clause (b) and (c ) of
Section 507 deals with the nature of grant of exemption or levy of
taxes for such of the areas falling within the scope and ambit of the
Act, 1957.  
18
32. At the same time, Section 502 on which the learned counsel
for the appellants has given more emphasis, it only provides that
this Act(Act 1957) shall not be construed authorizing disregard to
any law for the time being in force and rightly so for the reason,
that scope and ambit of the Act, 1954, in no manner, has to be
disregarded by the provisions of the Act, 1957.
33. At   this   stage,   if   we   look   into   the   Delhi   Development   Act,
1957(hereinafter being referred to as the “DDA Act”), it nowhere
makes a distinction in the nature of land whether it is rural or
urban, as the case may be.  The DDA Act, 1957 is enacted with an
object of development of Delhi according to sanctioned plan and for
matters ancillary thereto.  If we consider the term ‘development’ as
defined under Section 2(e) of the DDA Act, it clearly notifies that
such of the area which has been declared to be a development area
under Section 12, after publication in the official gazette, shall be
considered a development area within the purport of the Act and it
is a complete code in itself for the purpose of disposal of land.  The
expression   ‘land’   in   Section   2(l)   is   in   reference   to   the   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
19
34. Relevant Sections of Act, 1957 are reproduced hereunder:­
“2(e)   “development   area”   means   any   area   declared   to   be   a
development area under sub­section (1) of section 12;
2(l) the expression “land” shall have the meaning assigned to it in
section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. Declaration of development areas and development of land in
those and other areas.—
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare   any   area   in   Delhi   to   be   a   development   area   for   the
purposes of this Act:
Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless a
proposal for such declaration has been referred by the Central
Government to the Authority and the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi for expressing their views thereon within thirty days from the
date of the receipt of the reference or within such further period as
the Central Government may allow and the period so specified or
allowed has expired.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not
undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which
is not a development area. 
(3) After the commencement of this Act no development of land
shall be undertaken or carried out in any area by any person or
body (including a department of Government) unless,— 
(i) where that area is a development area, permission for such
development has been obtained in writing from the Authority
in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(ii) where that area is an area other than a development area,
approval  of,   or sanction  for,   such  development   has  been
obtained in writing from the local authority concerned or any
officer or authority thereof empowered or authorised in this
behalf, in accordance with the provisions made by or under
the law governing such authority or until such provisions
have been made, in accordance with the provisions of the
regulations   relating   to   the   grant   of   permission   for
20
development   made   under   the   Delhi   (Control   of   Building
Operations) Act, 1955 (53 of 1955), and in force immediately
before the commencement of this Act: 
Provided   that   the   local   authority   concerned   may
[subject   to   the   provisions   of   section   53A]   amend   those
regulations in their application to such area. 
(4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area
no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area
unless such development is also in accordance with such plans. 
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­sections (3) and (4)
development of any land begun by any department of Government
or any local authority before the commencement of this Act may be
completed   by   that   department   or   local   authority   without
compliance with the requirements of those sub­sections.”
35. So far as the DDA Act is concerned, it is only for the purpose
of development of Delhi according to the sanctioned master plan
and zonal development plan notified under Section 7 of the Act and
for matters ancillary thereto regardless of fact whether it is a rural
area or urbanized which is for different purposes covered by the
provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957.
36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act
1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has
been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act,
1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply.   In sequel
21
thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non
est and loses its legal significance.
37. We approve the view expressed by the Division Bench of the
High Court in Smt. Indu Khorana(supra) which was later followed
in the judgment impugned by the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 22nd November, 2012.
38. So far as the judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Agarwal
& Others(supra) on which learned counsel for the appellants has
placed reliance is concerned, in the first instance, there was no
such notification under the relevant laws which declared the land to
be urbanized as published in the instant case under Section 507(a)
of the Act, 1957 and the objection raised by the learned counsel
was in reference to the scope and ambit of the Orissa Land Reforms
Act, 1960 and the question was whether the reforms Act has any
application to the land which is a part of the master plan of the city
under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.  In that
reference, the observations were made by this Court as to what
extent the provisions of the reforms Act will apply in reference to
agricultural or other purposes.  This Court was very conscious that
22
no notification  had been  published in  the case on hand  which
reserved for urbanization within the scope and ambit of Section
73(c) of the Orrisa Land Reforms Act, 1960 which, in our view, may
not be of any assistance to the appellants.
39. So far as the submission made in reference to the earlier
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi which
has not been looked into by the Division Bench under the impugned
judgment   in   the   case   of  Umed   Singh(supra)   is   concerned,   on
principle, we are not in agreement with the view expressed by the
High Court in Umed Singh(supra), at the same time, we would like
to   observe   that   the   case   was   in   reference   to   consolidation
notification issued on 8th  September, 1993, and what will be the
effect of Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948,
in that reference, the High Court examined the scope and ambit of
the Act, 1957.
40. Before   we   conclude,   we   may   like   to   observe   that   the
respondents   purchased   the   subject   land   from   Maman   Singh
(recorded Bhumidhar) by a registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1989
and mutation also, at one time, was opened in their names on 31st
23
May, 1989.  Later, they were compelled to file a civil suit in the year
1990 for taking over possession of the subject property in question.
41. It reveals from the record that after a few rounds of litigation,
the  Financial Commissioner set aside the order of  mutation  by
Order dated 10th February, 1995, the matter later travelled to the
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and by judgment dated
22nd  November,   2012,   it   was   held   that   once   the   rural   area   is
urbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the
Act, 1957, it ceases to be governed by the provisions of Act, 1954.
42.   What persuaded this Court is that even after upholding the
judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dated   22nd
November, 2012, it gives a fresh life to the respondents to go ahead
in taking possession of the subject property despite the fact that
registered sale deed dated 4th  May, 1989 was executed in their
favour by Maman Singh(Bhumidhar) but they are still deprived of
possession and the defence of the appellants in counter is that they
are in possession of the subject land by adverse possession.  At the
same time, this Court may also record that the registered sale deed
dated   4th  May,   1989   executed   in   favour   of   the   respondents   by
24
Maman   Singh   (Bhumidhar)   was   never   the   subject   matter   of
challenge and no such proceedings are pending in the Court of law.
43.   At this point of time, it reminds us that the civil suit filed at
the instance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject
land which is pending for the last 32 years has not started its
journey as yet and this is called the travesty of injustice to a person
who   is   indisputedly   the   title   holder   still   unable   to   enjoy   the
property.
44.   In the given facts and circumstances, in exercise of our power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and to do complete justice to
the   parties,   we   direct   the   appellants   to   hand   over   physical
possession of the subject land free from all encumbrances to the
respondents within a period of two months from the date of passing
of this Order.  If the appellants fail to hand over possession within
the time stipulated, it will be open to the respondents to make an
application to the concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and
after   obtaining   necessary   orders   with   assistance   of   the   local
administration may proceed for taking possession of the subject
land.  It goes without saying that the possession has to be handed
25
over in terms of the registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1989 which
has been executed by Maman Singh (Bhumidhar) in the names of
the respective respondents.
45. The pending civil suit in the above terms stands disposed of.
46. We find no substance in the instant appeal.   The same is
hereby dismissed with the observations afore­stated.  No costs.     
47. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
       ……………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
       ……………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELH;
MARCH 14, 2023
2