Sobha Chand v. Deputy Commissioner (Sw) & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶1The petitioner claims to be in occupation of land admeasuring 12 Bighas & 13 Biswas bearing Khasra Nos.41/5 (0-14), 42/1/1(3-12), 10(2-16), 12/1(2-7), 9/2(3-14) situated in the Revenue Estate of village Samaspur Khalsa, Najafgarh, New Delhi for the last four decades. The petitioner admits that the land is recorded in the name of the respondent no.3 Gaon Sabha. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 and to the respondent no.2 Tehsildar to carry out entries in the relevant column in the Khasra Girdawari in accordance with

Rule 63 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 and to reflect each and every crop sown by the petitioner and to record his cultivatory possession with respect to the said land. The petitioner contends that the respondents 1 & 2 are bound to do so in terms of Rule 63 (supra) and are failing in their duty. The petitioner claims to have earlier filed writ petitions for the same relief and pursuant whereto the respondents are informed to have recorded the possession of the petitioner for the year / crop for which direction was issued. The petitioner however claims that the failure of the respondents 1 & 2 compels her to file writ petitions repeatedly.

¶2The petitioner further pleads that his possession over the said land is not disputed by the respondent no.3 inasmuch as the respondent no.3 Gaon Sabha has in or about the year 2005 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

¶3In the earlier writ petitions filed before this Court, directions were issued to the revenue authorities to examine the application of the petitioner under Rule 63 and to pass a speaking order thereon. Though I have in judgment dated 16th September, 2010 in WP(C) No. 5807/2010 titled Sh. Bhagmal Vs. Gaon Sabha, Aya Nagar held that once the proceedings under Section 86A are pending, person in possession cannot insist upon his possession being recorded but nevertheless since no order has been passed on the applications of the petitioner, the respondents 1 & 2 are directed to within four weeks from today make a speaking order on

all pending applications of the petitioner under Rule 63 aforesaid and in the said order to also deal with the question whether during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act the said Rule 63 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules is to be complied with or not. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

(JUDGE) 24th September, 2010 'gsr'..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24th September, 2010. + % SHOBHA CHAND ..... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate Versus DY. COMMISSIONER (SW) & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?