KEWAL SINGH Vs. K N BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Revenue Assistant, Shahdara, Delhi under section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (for short, the Revenue Act) deleting the entry regarding bhoomidhari rights in respect of the land in dispute made in favour of the petitioner and certain others even while holding that the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Reforms Act) were inapplicable to the land in question by virtue of the same being evacuee property.

(2.) Land in dispute initially belonged to certain Muslim owners and was declared as evacuee property on their migration to the territories now forming part of Pakistan. It was eventually vested in the Central Government under the provisions of Section 12 of the Displaced persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was allotted to one Smt. Devki Devi, one of the respondents in the present petition, and it was directed that the possession of the land be delivered to her. Certain persons, including the petitioners, sought to be recognised as tenants on the basis of an expired lease and for cancellation of allotment but their pleas failed and it was held that they were in unauthorisd occupation of the property after the expiry of the lease in thair favour. Thereupon they made an application before the Revenue Assistant under Section 5 (c) read with Section 13 (1) (f) of the Reforms Act praying for the grant of bhoomidhari rights. The application was rejected by the Revenue Assistant. The matter was taken to the then Chief Commissioner, Delhi on a revision under Section 187 of the Reforms Act. Smt. Devki Devi was, however, not impleaded. The plea of the petitioner and others prevailetd with the Chief Commissioner who declareed that that the petitioners had boomidhari righrs in the land in dispute. Pursuant to this order the Revenue Assistant made the necessary .entries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner and certain others. In 1964 a suit was filed under Section 84 of the Reforms Act to eject Sm. Devki Devi on the ground that the petitioner and others were the bhoomidhars. The suit was resisted by Smt. Devki Devi and it was pleaded that she was not bound by the order made by the Chief Commissoner in proceedings in which she was not made a party. As the question of title was. involved in the suit the Revenue Assistant made a reference in 1966 under Section 186 of the Reforms Act and referred the question whether the petitioners and others were bhoomidhars to a civil court for decision. The reference was answered against the petitioners on the basis of which the Revenue Assistant declard that the petitj- oners and others were not the bhoomidhars and that Smt. Devki Devi was the owner. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Revenue Assistant was upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Delhi. The revision to this Court against the judgment of the District Judge, Delhi, was dismissed in 1974. Soon after the decision of this Court Smt. Devki Devi moved the Revenue Assistant under Section 26 of the Revenue Act to delete the entry regarding bhoomidhari rights made in favour of the petitioners and others pursuant to the order of the Chief Commissioner. It was further prayed that an entry with regard to bhoomidhari rights be also made in favour of Smt. Devki Devi. By an order of April 28, 1974, now sought to be assailed, the Revenue Assistant accepted the first plea and, therefore, directed the deletion of the entry regarding bhoomdhari rights made in favour of the petitioners and certain others but declined the second plea to enter the name of Smt Devki Devi as a bhoomidhar on the ground that the provisions of the Reforms Act were not applicable to the land in dispute by virtue of the fact that it was evacuee property.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners two contentions were raised. In the first place, it was urged that the property being admittedly evacuee propety the Revenue Assistant was not competent to delete the entry in exercise of power U/S 26 of the Revenue Act as the Act admittedly did not apply to the property in dispute. Secondly, it was urged that in any event the Revenue Assistant was not competent to make an order under Section 26 of that Act.