GAON SABHA SAMALKA Vs. SHER SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.12.1997 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. By the impugned judgment and decree respondents/plaintiffs have been granted declaration that they are the owners of the suit land which comprises of 32 bighas and 6 biswas of land in village Samalkha, Delhi, bearing Kila Nos. 2, 3, 9 of rectangle No. 31, Kila No. 22/2, 23, 24/1, 17/1 of rectangle No. 25 and Kila No. 15 of rectangle No. 56 (hereinafter referred to as "suit property/suit land").

(2.) The subject suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs pleading their entitlement to the suit land on account of the same having been of their forefathers and which ultimately came to be vested in them. It was pleaded that disputes arose between the respondent/plaintiff, through their predecessors, with the Gaon Sabha with respect to whether or not the suit land stood vested in the Gaon Sabha after coming into force the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and this issue was decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in a suit which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs being Civil Suit No.246/1965 and which was decided by the court of Sh. H.C.Gupta, Sub-Judge First Class Delhi on 29.1966. It was therefore contended by the respondents/plaintiffs that the issue of ownership became final in terms of the said judgment which became final as it was not appealed from. It was also pleaded in the plaint that in fact the Union of India subsequently has filed a suit to question the Judgment and Decree dated 23.1966, however even this suit was dismissed as abated and appeal against the order of abatement was dismissed by the Judgment dated 7.5.1976 passed by Mr N.L. Kakkar, ADJ Delhi. The subject suit was filed on the ground that entries which have now been made in the revenue record without following any due process of law, and whereby Gaon Sabha is once again shown as owner of the suit land, is an illegal act and the same would not affect the ownership rights of the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit land, with the fact that the concerned entries showing Gaon Sabha as owner of the suit land be directed to be changed by showing the respondents/plaintiffs as owners and not the Gaon Sabha/appellant/defendant. Accordingly, the respondents/plaintiffs sought the reliefs of declaration and injunction with respect to the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant and it was pleaded by the appellant/defendant that relief claimed in the suit could not be granted by the civil court but could only be granted by the Revenue Court inasmuch as the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It was contended by the appellant/defendant that bhumidhari rights can only be declared by the Revenue Court and not by a civil court. The Union of India was pleaded to be a necessary party and in the absence of whom the suit could not be decided in view of the provision of Sections 161-A and 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The suit was also pleaded to be barred by limitation and also that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of notices under Section 80 CPC to Union of India and notice under Section 99 of the Panchayat Raj Act. A Decree passed by the civil court on 22.9.1966 was argued to be without jurisdiction and therefore non-est/void.