UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties. Mr. V.K. Tandon counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declaring the respondent as Bhumidar. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the respondent could not have moved an application under Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act for declaring him as a Bhumidar before the completion of the lease period granted to him. It was further contended by the 6ounsel for the appellant that in any case Section 74 (4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act postulates that application shall be made at the end of five years. It is relevant to quote sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The same is as under:

(2.) It was also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Revenue Assistant could not have declared the respondent as a Asami and in the instant case vide impugned order dated 7.9.93 passed by the SDM/Revenue Assistant which is at page 49 of the paper book the SDM/Revenue Assistant declared the respondent as a Asami, while the respondent had applied before the SDM/Revenue Assistant for declaring the respondent as a Bhumidar, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.8.94 as well as the order of the Additional Collector passed on 14.6.94 was bad in law.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Chetan Sharma learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act has to be read taking into account the objective consideration of the enactment of the said Act. It was further contended by Mr. Sharma counsel for the respondent that the period for making an application under sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not mention 'after the lapse of five years' but the legislature in its wisdom has chosen the word' at the end of five years'. Therefore, what was contended before us by the counsel for the respondent was that it could not have been after two years, three years or four years but if substantial period of five years was over then there was no impediment in the way of the respondent making an application by invoking sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. He has also contended that period of five years be not taken in such strict sense as taken under fiscal statues. It was further contended by Mr. Sharma that the application was made just only 11 days before the expiry of the period of five years. He further contended that the main purpose of enactment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act particularly Section 74 (4) was to see that the land which has not been cultivated, the same has been put to cultivation, then, such holder of a land should not be evicted from the land in question. The learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that there is a finding given by the Revenue Assistant that by sheer hard work of the respondent the respondent has reclaimed the land by cultivation.