PYARE Vs. FINANCE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 3/7/1989, the order of the Additional Collector dated 2/6/1989 and the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 11/2/1987. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :- The petitioner claims to be in cultivatory possession of land measuring 3 bighas 1 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 59/1,1 situated in the revenue estate of village Pooth Kalan, Delhi, for about two decades. As a consequence of being in possession of the land, he asserts to be a Bhumidhar of the land. On 17/9/1981 the petitioner filed an application under section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms- Act, 1954 in the court of the Revenue Assistant for being declared as Bhumidhar of the land. While the proceedings before the Revenue Assistant were pending, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per the following details :- Date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 11/12/1981 Date of issuance of Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 11/04/1984 Date of Award No.20/85-86 covering the land in question. 11/11/1985 Date of taking over of symbolic possession of the land. 13/11/1985 On 11/2/1987 the Revenue Assistant dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that since the land stood acquired, the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try the case. Not being satisfied with the order of the Revenue. Assistant the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Delhi. The Additional Collector refused to interfere with the order of the Revenue Assistant and dismissed the appeal on 2/6/1989. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner by way of a second appeal. The Financial Commissioner on 3/7/1989 dismissed the appeal as he was of the view that the questions relating to bhumidhari rights is outside the purview of the revenue court because of the acquisition of the land.

(2.) Mr.Ramesh Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land originally belonged to the Gaon Sabha and has been in possession of the petitioner for a long period of two decades. He contended that since the Gaon Sabha did not file a suit under section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the petitioner within a period of three years from the date of the occupation of the land by him, the petitioner became a Bhumidhar by virtue of the provisions of section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. He further canvassed that the revenue authorities were not right in their view that once the land is acquired by the State the Revenue Assistant loses jurisdiction to decide, the question whether or not the person taking or retaining possession of the land becomes a Bhumidhar. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 S.C. 2320, Mr.Ramesh Chandra argued that it is the Revenue Assistant which is authorised to determine the question whether or not a person has become a Bhumidhar due to taking over.of the possession of the agricultural land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law, and the civil courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in which the plaintiff. claims that he is the Bhumidhar of the land in view of section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

(3.) We have considered the submission of the learned counsel. The Land acquisition Act is a self contained code. Under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector is required to enquire into the objections which any interested person makes pursuant to a notice under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8 and into the value of the land at the time of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation. The Collector is required to make an award under his hand incorporating the following features : -