//
you're reading...
legal issues

“Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then the plaint can be rejected. The legal position is that to decide whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 4 of 10 defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal, categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is barred………………”= In the context of Section 185 of the DLR Act, Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha and Anr. Vs. Nathi and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 555 has held as under:- “The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 9 of 10 vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal

CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 1 of 10

Sansad Bhavan, parliament building of India.

Image via Wikipedia


$~7
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2191/2007 and IA No. 7454/2009 (u/O 7 R 11 r/w
Sec. 151 CPC)
Decided on: 28th November, 2011
SMT. USHA GUPTA ….. Plaintiff
Through : Mr. M.F. Khan and Mr.
G.S. Chauhan, Adv. for Mr.
A.K. Bajpai, Adv.
versus
SH. SUBASH CHAND TYAGI ….. Defendant
Through : Mr. I.P. Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK,J. (ORAL)
1. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC defendant
has prayed that the plaint be rejected being barred by Section 185
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (“DLR Act”, for short).
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession against the
defendant in respect of the land admeasuring 4120 sq. yds. forming
part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 2 of 10
Shankarpura, Kaushik Enclave, Village Burari, Nathu Pura Road,
Delhi, more particularly, shown in green colour in the site plan
attached with the plaint.
3. Case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that he was the
owner of land admeasuring 5280 sq. yds. (approximately) forming
part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at
Hoover Farm, Shankar Pura, Kaushik Enclave, Village Burari,
Delhi. Plaintiff had sold a piece of land admeasuring 1160 sq yds.
forming part of khasra nos. 35/12 min and 35/9/1 to the defendant
on 10th August, 2005 and on the same day handed over the
possession of the said land to the defendant. On 13th May, 2006
plaintiff came to know that defendant had sold 4120 sq. yds. abadi
land shown in green colour forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1,
35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at Shankar Pura (adjoining to
the land admeasuring 1160 sq. yds., which he had sold to
defendant) and had transferred the same to several persons, who
had constructed rooms and boundaries over the said land of the
plaintiff. A complaint was lodged with DCP (North) on 4th June,
2006, but no action was taken. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff is
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 3 of 10
that the defendant has illegally sold the land admeasuring 4120 sq.
yds. forming part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2, 35/10 min, 35/12
min to some unknown persons and such persons were trespassers/
unauthorized occupants on the land of plaintiff. In these facts,
plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession.
4. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at
the averments made in the plaint by taking the same as correct on
its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof.
Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the
application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read
as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff. In
Sri Kishan Vs. Shri Ram Kishan and Ors.159 (2009) DLT 470, a
Single Judge of this Court observed thus, “Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears
from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then
the plaint can be rejected. The legal position is that to decide
whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11,
averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 4 of 10
defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments
made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7
Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal,
categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is
barred………………”
5. From the plaint and documents it is borne out that the land
involved in this case is an agricultural land situated at village
Shankarpura, Burari, Delhi. This is so evident from the fact that
khasra numbers, as per revenue record, have been mentioned in the
plaint and not the municipal numbers. In the reply to the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaintiff has claimed that
the land has already been declared “abadi land”, thus, DLR Act is
not applicable. Plaintiff has placed reliance on the notification No.
183 dated 18th November, 1983 published in the Delhi Gazette
issued by the Government of India (Delhi Administration) in
support of his contention. However, a perusal of notification
makes it clear that the same has been issued under the provisions of
the DLR Act and the rules made therein. Vide the said notification,
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 5 of 10
Administrator has declared the area specified in column I of the
table as a village “abadi”, which contains khasra nos. 35/27 and
36/26, „Shankarpura‟, falling within the local area of Village Burari
declared as village “abadi”. This notification has not been issued
under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
thereby notifying the area as urbanized area. First of all, this
notification will not shed the character of the land from agricultural
to “abadi land”, which forms part of khasra nos. 35/9/1, 35/9/2,
35/10 min, 35/12 min situated at Shankar Pura as the notification is
in respect of land bearing khasra nos. 35/27 and 36/26. Secondly,
the land forming part of khasra nos. 35/27 and 36/26 has not been
declared as urbanized area, inasmuch as, it has only been notified
that the khasra numbers mentioned in the notification will be
recorded as separate revenue village (Abadi) in the revenue records
maintained under the provisions of the DLR Act. Thus, in my
view, DLR Act would be applicable to the land in question.
6. Section 84(1)(a) of the DLR Act provides that a person
taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance
with the provisions of the law, forming part of holding of a
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 6 of 10
Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhar or
Asami, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidhar,
Asami or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be and shall also be liable
to pay damages. Remedy is provided under this Section for
ejectment of a trespasser or unauthorized occupant.
7. Section 185 of the DLR Act provides that no court other than
a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take
cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in
column 3 thereof. Article 19 of Schedule I under Section 84 of the
DLR Act provides that a suit for ejectment of a person occupying
land without title and damages, by a Bhumidhar declared under
Chapter III of the DLR Act or by an Asami falling under Section 6
of the Act, where such unlawful occupant was in possession of the
land before the issue of the prescribed declaration form, shall be
filed within three years from the date of issue of the prescribed
declaration form to the tenure holder or the sub tenure holder
concerned before the „Revenue Assistant‟. Appeal against the
order of Revenue Assistant lies before the Deputy Commissioner.
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 7 of 10
Thus, it is clear that no suit for ejectment and/or possession in
respect of land to which DLR Act is applicable, is maintainable
before the Civil Court, as the remedy lies before the „Revenue
Assistant‟ in this regard. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
ousted under Section 185 of the DLR Act.
8. In Hatti vs. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2320, Supreme
Court has held that with regard to the suits for possession, under
Section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule gives
jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession
and a suit for possession in respect of agricultural land, after the
commencement of the Act, can only be instituted either by a
Bhumidar or by an Asami or the Gram Sabha and not by any
person claiming to be a proprietor because the Act does not
envisage a proprietor as such continuing to have rights after the
commencement of the Act. The First Schedule and Section 84 of
DLR Act provide full remedy for suit for possession to a person
who holds right in the agricultural land under the Act. It has been
further observed that the Act is a complete Code under which it is
clear that anyone wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidhar
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 8 of 10
or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in
favour of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under item
4 of the First Schedule and this, he is allowed to do without any
period of limitation because he may not be aware of the fact that a
declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of
another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person
can, thus, be sought without any period of limitation. If there is
dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be
sought under Section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule.
All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were,
thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant,
and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
9. A Single Judge of this Court in Sri Kishan (supra) has held
that a suit for declaration and partition of agricultural land shall be
barred under Section 185 of the DLR Act. In the context of
Section 185 of the DLR Act, Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha and
Anr. Vs. Nathi and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 555 has held as under:-
“The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and
there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which
was filed seeking a declaration that the order of
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 9 of 10
vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal. It is indeed
surprising that in spite of the aforesaid Division
Bench decision of the Delhi High Court which was
rendered in 1973 which had settled the legal position
and was a binding precedent and the decision of this
Court in Hatti v. Sundar Singh (supra) which was also
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge
hearing the second appeal (RSA No. 73 of 1972), he
chose to bye-pass the same by some queer logic and
went on to hold that the civil suit was maintainable.
Once we come to the legal position that the civil court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the inevitable
consequence is that the decree passed in the aforesaid
suit including that of the High Court is wholly without
jurisdiction……..”
10. Judgment in Rajender Singh vs. Vijay Pal @ Jai Pal and
Others, 2008 (148) DLT 596, reliance whereupon has been placed
by the plaintiff‟s counsel is in the context of different facts and is
of no help to the plaintiff. Reliefs claimed in the said suit were
with regard to declaration and permanent injunction. The scope of
Section 84 DLR Act read with item 19(i) of Schedule I which
provides0 a remedy of possession under the said Act, was not in
issue nor it has been held that suit for declaration and/or possession
is maintainable in a civil court in respect of an agricultural land
governed under the DLR Act.
11. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the view that the present
CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 10 of 10
suit is not maintainable. Plaint is, thus, rejected. Application is
disposed of in the above terms.
12. All the pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
rb

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 642,548 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,558 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com

comments

k.inbasakaran,advoca… on Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Ter…
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,558 other followers