BHARAT BHUSHAN GULATI Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 29.5.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 20.03.2003 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) PLAINTIFF /appellant had filed a suit for possession stating to be the owner of land measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing No. A3/29, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He had purchased it from Hari Prakash on 28.11.1981. Defendant was permitted to use the property as a licensee which license has since been terminated but in spite of request to the defendant to evict the property; he has not vacated the property. The defendant had refuted the claim of the plaintiff. He had claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. The trial court had framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was as to whether the plaintiff is owner of suit property? While dealing with this issue, the trial court had recorded that the plaintiff has filed copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 1994 -95 of the village Hastsal as also a copy of Khatoni for the year 1978 -79. It had further held that in the first document the Gram Sabha has been shown to be as a Bhumidar of land measuring 4.13 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 76, Katoni No. 694, Killa No. 9/2/2 and the latter document shows that Khasra No. 72/2/2/2, 76/9/2/2 vests in the Gram Sabha by virtue of Section 81 of Delhi Rent Control Act. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property as the same had vested in the Gram Sabha. The registered sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff dated 28.11.1981 does not pass any title as the vendor had no right to sell this suit property. It was further held that defendant is not a licensee in the suit property. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is liable to be set aside for the reason that the disputed land has been notified under Section 507(a) of the the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DMC Act') as 'urban land' and as such it is taken out of the purview of the Delhi Reforms Act. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 4143/2003 Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha and Ors. wherein it has been held that once a rural area is urbanized by issuance of a notification under Section 507(a) of DMC Act, provisions of Delhi Reforms Act will cease to apply. There is no dispute to this proposition. However, it is to be noted that the notification under Section 507A of DMC Act had not been brought on record by the plaintiff. This is an oral submission which is made at this stage. No court below had any such evidence to draw a finding that the disputed land had become urbanized under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act and was excluded from the provisions of the Delhi Reforms Act. This judgment is inapplicable.