SUPRIYA DIWAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition impugning the orders passed by the SDM in respect of the land in question. The petitioners own case is that they are in occupation of different portions of the said land and are using it for residential and commercial purposes. Undisputedly the land is meant for agricultural use.

(2.) The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have a right in the land in question in pursuance to the various powers of attorney executed by the Bhumidar and thus they cannot be ejected from the land in question without following the due process as laid down in the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The attention of this court is invited to Sections 84 to 86 A of the said Act in this behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even a person taking or retaining possession of the land other than in accordance with the provisions of law where the land forms part of the Bhumidar's land must follow the due process.

(3.) It is relevant to note that the case set up in the writ petition is not that the petitioners are purchasers of the land in question for valuable consideration and that in the absence of duly authorised documents title is derived in pursuance to such agreements coupled with powers of attorney. The claim in the petition is that the petitioners are holing the property on behalf of the Bhumidars. This is apparent from para 13 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is an admitted position that the bhumidars of the land in question in their own right have challenged the impugned orders. However, that is a matter to be determined in the said writ petition as undoubtedly the bhumidars of the land have rights in the land and due compliance of the provisions of the Act has to take place before their ejectment.