KHACHARU Vs. RISAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two regular second appeals Nos. 263-D and 264-D of 1964 inasmuch as the question of law involved in both the cases is the same. Originally, both these appeals had come up for hearing before I. D. Dua, J, who by his order dated April 26, 1967 referred the matter to a larger Bench in view of the importance of the question involved.

(2.) The facts in both the appeals are similar although the parties and the land in dispute are different. The plaintiffs-respondents were the proprietors of land in Village Hulabi Kalan, Delhi. The defendants-appellants were tenants of some of the plots of land of which the respondents were the owners. The appellants were evicted from the land in their possession sometime after July I, 1950 on ground other than for non-payment of rent. Thereafter there was consolidation of holdings in this village and the respondents were allotted plots of land other than those which were held by them prior to consolidation. The new holdings of the respondents also included plots of land in lieu of plots which were earlier under the tenancy of the appellants. After the enforcement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the appellants initiated two separate proceedings for restoration of the possession of land alleging that they had been dispossessed and evicted after July 1, 1950 and were, therefore, entitled to be put back in possession as they had been evicted for grounds other than for nonpayment of rent in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. These applications were heard by the Court of the Additional Revenue Assistant, Delhi, who by means of an order dated 19-8-1958 directed the appellants in one matter to be put back in possession of the entire land and in the other the entire land except khasra No. 1135/154. The respondents appealed against the orders in both the applications but in one of the matters in which khasra No. 1135/154 was not given to the applicants in that case they also filed a crossappeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeals of the present respondents and accepted the cross-objections in respect of Khasra No. 1135/154. The result was that the applicants in both the proceedings succeeded in getting orders for restoration of possession under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Delhi Land Re- forms Act. Thereafter the present respondents filed their respective suits bearing Nos. 408 and 409 of 1962. In these suits the respondents raised various pleas and, infer alia, urged that the orders passed by the Revenue Assistant and the Chief Commissioner were without jurisdiction, ultra vires illegal and a nullity on the following grounds :-

(3.) The respondents had also contended in these suits that they were not liable to be dispossessed inasmuch as they had been granted Bhumindari rights under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and could be evicted from their holdings only if the requirements of section 76 of that Act were fulfilled. In consequence, the respondents had prayed for the issue of a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing them from the land in dispute in each of the suits.