HARI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 01.10.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Hari Singh (seeking a declaration to the effect that he be declared as an owner of the agricultural land comprised in khasra no.304, measuring 6 bighas 2 biswas situated in village Bhalaswa, Jahangirpur, Delhi with the further prayer that the notification dated 11.7.1986 be declared null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff; prayer of permanent injunction had also been sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit property) had been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claimed himself to the cultivator of agricultural land as aforenoted i.e. the land measuring 6 bighas 2 biswas in Khasra No.304 in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa, Jahangirpur, P.O.Samaypur, Delhi. He was in possession and harvesting the land since 1952 without any interference from any quarter. The Halka Patwari in 1960 wrongly showed this land as vacant land; thereafter it was shown in the name of one Jumma who had no right or title in the land. This was in connivance with the defendants. PLAINTIFF had filed a petition for correction of the entries in the khasra girdawari before the Revenue Assistant which application was rejected. Appeal was filed; order of the Revenue Assistant was set aside. On 11.7.1986 a notification had been issued by the defendants wherein the suit land came to be declared as public land for a public purpose; this was wrongfully shown in the gazette notification; this notification is invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff. Further case of the plaintiff that his name has not been shown in khasra girdawari since 1981-82 and thereafter up to 1992; it was last shown in the record for the year 1979-80; plaintiff is a harvester and growing his crops in the suit land since 1952. Suit land since 1986 had been declared public land and for public purpose; notification dated 11.7.1986 is also not binding upon him. Accordingly prayer has been made as aforenoted.

(3.) ISSUES no.5 to 9 were treated as preliminary issues. The trial judge was of the view that the plaintiff is claiming himself to the bhumidari of the suit land. Such a declaration can only be granted by a Revenue Court. Provision of Section 185 of the DLRA the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred qua relief of declaration that the notification dated 11.7.1986 be declared null and void. Court was of the opinion that the same cannot be challenged in a Civil Court; land has been declared as public land; under Section 1(2)(4) of the DLRA, the declaration of a Chief Commissioner under sub Section 2(C) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is held and occupied for a public purpose. Court was of the view that the notification cannot be subject matter of challenge; suit was accordingly dismissed. This was affirmed in first appeal. The impugned judgment inter alia recorded its finding as under: