BRIJ KISHORE TYAGI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LPA No. 203/2011 and CM No.4392/2011 (for directions) Drawing our attention to the impugned order dated 20th January, 2011 and observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh vs. A.D.M.(Revenue) and Others., 57(1995) DLT 547(DB) and the learned Single Judge in Shri Ram Phal and Another vs. B.S. Bhalla and Ors., 112(2004) DLT 193. It is submitted that the whole issue including the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 788/2010, Shri Bhagmal and Ors. vs. Gaon Sabha Aya Nagar andOrs., requires reconsideration.

(2.) WE do not agree. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was examining the question whether by a notification six categories of land could be excluded from the operation of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 (the Act and Rules, for short) by giving it a colour of an amendment to the Rules. This Court did not agree and the writ was allowed. Accordingly, amendment to Form P.5 was quashed and the respondent revenue authority was directed to maintain record of rights, including the annual register in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2000) 5 SCC 452.

(3.) THE judgment in the case of Ram phal (supra) is distinguishable. In the said case, the Court was dealing with contempt proceedings and allegation was that there was willful disobedience of the judgment in the case of Balbir Singh (supra). In the said case, it was noticed that the proceedings under Section 86A of the Act were initiated in or around August, 2000 much after the judgment. It is not very clear but probably the revenue entries which were subject matter in Ramphal's case (supra) related to the period prior to 2000. THE said judgment specifically records that ejectment of an unauthorized or illegal person can only be effected by resort to these Sections and not by the device of refusing to record the name of the person in actual possession. In the present case ejectment proceedings under Section 86A of the Act have been initiated.