PARTAP SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfortunately, pleadings in the writ petition are very inchoate. There is hardly any co-relation between the annexures annexed to the writ petition and the pleadings. However, with the assistance of Counsel appearing for the parties, core area of the dispute could be gathered by me. While drafting writ petitions it is advisable for Counsel to keep in mind that pleadings in writ petitions are pleadings of fact, law and evidence. Documents annexed with the writ petition constitute the primary source of information and while making the pleadings in the writ petition in reference to the annexure filed, relevance of the annexure should be brought out with clarity. In the present day scenario when there is docket explosion in Courts, a little homework by lawyers helps to curtail Court hearing.

(2.) I am concerned in the present writ petition with 4 bigha and 16 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 525 in the revenue estate of Village Kadipur. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that consolidation took place in the village in the year 1951-52. Being included in the holding of the petitioner, post consolidation said land was included in the holding of the petitioner, but the status of the land was recorded as 'banjar kadim'. In the year 1954, the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 was promulgated. The concept of holdings underwent a sea change under the new law. It was intended to do away with intermediaries and create only two categories of proprietors of agricultural land, namely, asami and bhumidar. Uncultivated waste land was vested in the gaon sabha. Vesting in the gaon sabha was under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The same reads as under :-

(3.) It is the admitted case of the parties, and as has been pleaded by the petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition, somewhere in the year 1958 the land, treated as waste land, was vested in the gaon sabha of village Kadipur. Petitioner did not challenge the said vesting order. It has attained finality. However, notwithstanding that the land was vested in the gaon sabha being treated as waste land, petitioner claims that he continues to be in possession of the land. Petitioner claims that somewhere down the years he started cultivating the land and has reclaimed the land as cultivable land.