BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are legal heirs of Mr. Roop Chand and claim bhumidari rights in land located in Khasra No. 120, admeasuring Bigha and 5 biswas situated within the revenue estate of Village Moradabad Pahari, Delhi. The said claim was made by the legal representatives of Mr. Roop Chand by filing an application under Section 11(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) before the Revenue Assistant in August, 1982. The basis of the claim was the decree dated 2nd January, 1961 in a suit which was filed by Mr. Roop Chand against Gaon Sabha of the Vill. Katwaria Sarai. The Revenue Asistant rejected the application by Order dated 3rd June, 1983, inter alia, holding that the land in question as per jamabandi, (Exhb. P -4) for the year 1948 -49 had been both shown as Khud Kasht and in possession of Mr. Roop Chand but also as ghair mumkin masjid. The Revenue Asistant further held that there is no documentary evidence to establish cultivation by Mr. Roop Chand and after his death in 1967, by his legal heirs from 1948 -49 till 1983 but on the contrary the land has remained ghair mumukin. The decree of the Civil Court relied upon by the appellants herein was held to be not binding and without jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hathi v. Sunder Singh reported in : (1970) 2 SCC 841. It was also noticed by the Revenue Assistant that the claim of bhumidari rights was made only after Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 24th October, 1981. On appeal, the Additional Collector upheld the said Order observing, inter alia, that the landed in question had not been under cultivation since 1948 -49 and therefore the claim that Mr. Roop Chand was a khud kasht cannot be accepted. On further appeal. The Financial Commissioner has upheld the findings of the Revenue Assistant and the Additional Collector. It was held that the decree of the Civil Court was without jurisdiction and cannot be relied upon. The Act is a complete Code in itself.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of the Section 40 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 as well as Sections 44 and 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and submitted that the decree of the Civil Court dated 1st February, 1961 was binding on the Revenue Authorities and suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 185 of the Act readed with Schedule 1, Clause 4. Relying upon Section 11(2) of the Act it was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be recorded as bhumidar on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court. It was further submitted that there was no question of limitation as Schedule 1, Clause 4 of the Act specifically states that an application claiming bhumidari rights can be moved at any time and no limitation period is prescribed.

(3.) THE following prayer was made in the suit: