KIDAR NATH SHARMA Vs. RATTIRAM MANGLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 22nd of January. 1964, in Regular Second Appeal No 247 D of 1962, passed by Justice Gurdev Singh the following two questions were referred to a larger Bench: " (1) Whether a Revenue Assistant can declare bhumidars under Section 13 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. without there being a notification of the Chief Commissioner in his favour empowering him to discharge all or any of the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act ? and (2) Whether a non-occupancy tenant, who is not a tenant in Shahdara Circle could be declared bhumidar under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. 1954?" Regular Second Appeal No. 248-D of 1962 is connected with this appeal and three other appeals (Regular Second Appeals Nos. 138-D and 149 D of 1961 and 334 D of 1962 ). in which similar questions of law arise, have also been ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. As this Bench is required only to record answers to the two specific questions referred, it will not be necessary to go into the peculiar facts of each case which will be taken up before the learned Single Judge before whom these appeals will go after answer to the two questions have been recorded ,

(2.) FOR the purpose of understanding the circumstances in which these two questions have arisen, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts in Regular Second Appeal No. 247-D of 1962. The dispute between the parties relates to 28 Bighas and 6 Biswas of agricultural land situated in village Wazirpur. Delhi Onkar Nath, appellant in Regular Second Appeal No 248-D of 1962. was recorded as its owner Subsequently, in a suit filed by his sons Sunder Nath, Jagat Narain and Kakko alias Jai Raj it was held that the property belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of these three sons and Onkar Nath Haiti Bam and Budhu were recorded as the non-occupancy tenants of this land. Acting under the provisions of Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. the Revenue Assistant. Delhi, declared them as bhumidars. Challenging this declaration of these two persons as bhumidars of the land in dispute, two suits were filed-- one by Onkar Nath qua his 1/4th share and the other by Dr. Kidar Nath and the above-named three sons of Onkar Nath for a declaration that the grant of certificates of bhumidari rights in favour of the aforesaid two non-occupancy tenants was bad and not in accordance with law and that Onkar Nath, in one case, and Dr. Kidar Nath in the other, were entitled to be declared as bhumidars. In the case filed by Dr. Kidar Nath, an alternative prayer was made that if it is found that Kidar Nath had no title as a result of sale by the sons of Onkar Nath in his favour then the sons of Onkar Nath were entitled to Bhumidari rights. It was found by the Courts below that Dr. Kidar Nath had no right and we are not, therefore, concerned with that matter any more However, as remarked by the learned Single Judge, the rights of Onkar Nath in the one case and that of his three sons in the other have to be determined. The two main grounds, on which claim was made by the landlords in these two suits, were (1) That the Revenue Assistant was not authorised to grant any declaration under sec-lion 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act inasmuch as he was not invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, who alone is authorised to make such a declaration; and (2) That under Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. non-occupant v tenants of the land which is not in Shahdara Circle (and the land in the present case is admittedly not in Shahdara Circle) are not entitled to the grant of such a declaration.

(3.) BOTH these points having been found against the plaintiffs in the two cases, they filed those second appeals in this Court. These two legal points, besides another, were dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Ramjilal v. Lekhi, Second Appeal No. 46-D of 1961, D/-13-3-1963 (Punj), on reference by a single Judge for an authoritative decision. That was also a case where bhumidari rights were granted by the Revenue Assistant to the non-occupancy tenants of the landlords with regard to the land which was situated in that part of Delhi where previously the Punjab Tenancy Act was applicable. The main question urged in that case, to which the major portion of the Judgment of the Division Bench is devoted, was based on the fact that the tenant was granted a certificate of his bhumidari rights in the land in dispute by the Revenue Assistant without any notice Io the proprietor. After going through the provisions of the law. the Bench came to the conclusion that ". . task of determining what individuals were entitled to the benefit of the general declaration of bhumidari rights made by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the entries in the revenue records of 1953-54 was obviously enormous and would take a very long period of years if there, was to be a contest in every case, or even in any considerable portion of cases, at the stage of preparation of the necessary certificates In the circumstances I can see nothing either undesirable or wrong in principle in the procedure for the preparation and distribution of bhumidari certificates in accordance with the provisions of Rules 6-A and the following rules, and I consider that persons who wish to contest the certificates granted under this procedure have ample opportunity to do so since rule 8 (4) enjoins on them the filing of a regular suit. . . . " It is not necessary for us in the present case to go into this part of the argument which was not raised before us and in any case, has not been referred to this Full Bench.