SHRI BHAGWAN Vs. GAON SABHA OF VILLAGE NASIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.3.2003 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Shri Bhagwan seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendant (Gaon Sabha Nasirpur) had been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff is that Khasra No. 384 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Nasirpur was in the recorded ownership of one Kheemoo and Shanker both sons of Malook Chand, both had equal share. Kheemoo died living behind his brother Shanker who is the father of the Plaintiff and the sole legal heir of Kheemoo. Father of the Plaintiff thus became exclusive owner of the aforenoted suit property. Contention is that under some misconception the Halka Patwari had recorded the suit land as "Gair Mumkin shore"; result was that the Revenue Assistant treated this land as waste land and vested the same in the Gaon Sabha. The suit land had a kucha boundary; it was thus exempted from the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act by virtue of Section 8. The vesting of this land in the Gaon Sabha was illegal. The father of the Plaintiff had constructed a pucca house on the site. Because of the wrong vesting of the land with the Gaon Sabha, the Revenue Assistant had initiated proceedings under Section 86A of Delhi Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "DLRA") against the father of the Plaintiff seeking his ejectment. Order of ejectment was passed on 26.2.1991. Appeal was preferred and the matter was remanded back for disposal and was held to be time barred. Land continues to be in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that the he apprehends that he will be dispossessed illegally without due process of law by the Defendant. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) The Defendant contested the proceedings. It was stated that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 185 of the DLRA; suit is also bad for want of notice under Section 99 of the Delhi Panchayati Raj Act; it was denied that the suit land has wrongly been mentioned as "Gair Mumkin Shore".