MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER versus NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS on 14 March 2023

256

[2023] 2 S.C.R.

AMOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER

v.

NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No (s). 3828 of 2017)

BMARCH 14, 2019

[AJAY RASTOGI , C. T. RAVIKUMAR ANDBELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 : ss. 2(52), 2(61),502, 507(a) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – ss. 3(5), 150 – DelhiCDevelopment Act, 1957 – Special provisions as to rural areas –Recorded Bhumidhar sold his land in a village in Delhi to one videregistered sale deed – He again sold some portion of his land torespondents vide sale deed in 1989 and their names were mutatedsubsequently – Appellants case that before the said sale deed couldDbe executed in favour of the respondents, the appellants had comeinto possession over the subject land – Appellant never challengedthe mutation order claiming adverse possession by filing appeal u/s. 64 of the 1954 Act – Said order of mutation was set aside byFinancial Commissioner holding that the said transfer was incontravention of s.33 of the 1954 Act and ordered that the land toEbe vested in Gaon Sabha – Challenged to, by respondent and thewrit petition was dismissed – However, Division Bench held thatonce by issuance of a notification u/s. 507(a), the rural area-subjectland is urbanised, it ceases to be rural area and be governed by theprovisions of the 1954 Act in sequel thereto and proceedings underF1954 Act were non est – On appeal, held : On harmonizing theprovisions of the 1954 Act and 1957 Act, once a notification hasbeen published in exercise of power u/s. 507(a), the provisions ofthe 1954 Act cease to apply – In sequel thereto, the proceedingspending under the 1954 Act become non est and loses its legalsignificance – On facts, to do complete justice to the parties, theGappellants directed to hand over physical possession of the subjectland free from all encumbrances to the respondents – Constitutionof India – Art.142.

H

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The combined reading of the provisions clearlyindicates that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 will not coversuch area as defined in the first instance which may or before thefirst day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality. The‘land’ which has been defined u/s. 3(13) provides that except insections 23 and 24, such of the land held or occupied for purposeconnected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandryincluding pisciculture and poultry farming and further includesother categories which are part of land but at the same time, itdoes not include land occupied by building in belts or areasadjacent to Delhi town. [Para 25][268-D-E]

1.2 ‘Delhi town’ has been defined under Section 3(5) of theAct which clearly defines that areas which immediately beforethe establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi wereincluded in the limits of Delhi Municipality. There is completeexclusion of the land occupied by buildings adjacent to Delhi townwhich falls before the establishment of Municipal Corporation ofDelhi and is not a land covered for the purpose by deciding rightsof the parties under tenure holder under Chapter II of the Act,1954. [Para 26][268-F-G]

1.3 Section 150(3), (4) and (5) of the Act indicate that if theGaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as definedin the Act, 1957 by virtue of notification under Section 507 of theAct, the Gaon Sabha shall thereupon stand dissolved or if a portionof Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas asaforesaid, the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha for that area ceasesin respect of that portion and for that portion stands dissolved orto that extent, the size of the Gaon Sabha stands reduced as aresult of a portion ceasing to be included in rural area. [Para27][268-G-H; 269-A]

1.4 The Act, 1957 has been primarily enacted to have auniform body to administer the Delhi Municipal Corporation toconsolidate various bodies, local authorities, looking after themunicipal affairs and to centralise for better administration andto overcome the problems being faced by various authorities aswell as by the public. Section 2(52) defines the ‘rural areas’ which A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Ademonstrates that the area of Delhi which immediately beforethe establishment of a Corporation, falls within the local limits ofthe District Board of Delhi, be considered to be the rural areabut that shall not include such portion thereof which by virtue ofnotification u/s. 507 declared to be urbanized and it ceases to beincluded under the term ‘rural areas’ and Section 2(61) definesB‘urban areas’ as the areas of Delhi which are not rural areas.[Para 29, 30][270-C-E]

1.5 Once there is a notification issued by the competentauthority in exercise of power under Section 507(a) which is aspecial provision in reference to rural areas, such of the ruralCareas cease to be included therein upon issuance of the notificationand shall thereafter include in and form part of the urban areas interms of the notification. Sub-clause (b) and (c ) of Section 507deals with the nature of grant of exemption or levy of taxes forsuch of the areas falling within the scope and ambit of the Act,D1957. At the same time, Section 502 only provides that this Act(Act 1957) shall not be construed authorizing disregard to anylaw for the time being in force and rightly so for the reason, thatscope and ambit of the Act, 1954, in no manner, has to bedisregarded by the provisions of the Act, 1957. [Para 31, 32][270-E-H]E

1.6 Delhi Development Act, 1957 nowhere makes adistinction in the nature of land whether it is rural or urban, asthe case may be. The DDA Act, 1957 is enacted with an object ofdevelopment of Delhi according to sanctioned plan and for mattersancillary thereto. If the term ‘development’ as defined underFSection 2(e) of the DDA Act is considered, it clearly notifies thatsuch of the area which has been declared to be a developmentarea under Section 12, after publication in the official gazette,shall be considered a development area within the purport of theAct and it is a complete code in itself for the purpose of disposalGof land. The expression ‘land’ in Section 2(l) is in reference tothe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. DDA Act is only for the purposeof development of Delhi according to the sanctioned master planand zonal development plan notified under Section 7 of the Actand for matters ancillary thereto regardless of fact whether it is a H

rural area or urbanized which is for different purposes coveredby the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957. [Para 33, 35][271-A-C; 272-F-G]

1.7 After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 andAct 1957, once a notification has been published in exercise ofpower u/s. 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act,1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pendingunder the Act, 1954 become non est and loses its legalsignificance. [Para 36][272-G-H]

1.8 The respondents purchased the subject land from M(recorded Bhumidhar) by a registered sale deed in 1989 andsubsequently,mutation also, at one time, was opened in theirnames. Later, they were compelled to file a civil suit in the year1990 for taking over possession of the subject property inquestion. It reveals from the record that after a few rounds oflitigation, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order ofmutation, the matter later travelled to the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Delhi and it was held that once the rural area isurbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507(a), itceases to be governed by the provisions of Act, 1954. [Para 40,41][273-G-H; 274-A-B]

1.9 Even after upholding the judgment of the Division Benchof the High Court it gives a fresh life to the respondents to goahead in taking possession of the subject property despite thefact that registered sale deed was executed in their favour by M(Bhumidhar) but they are still deprived of possession and thedefence of the appellants in counter is that they are in possessionof the subject land by adverse possession. At the same time, thisCourt may also record that the registered sale deed executed infavour of the respondents by M (Bhumidhar) was never thesubject matter of challenge and no such proceedings are pendingin the Court of law. [Para 42][274-B-D]

1.10 The civil suit filed at the instance of the respondentsfor taking possession of the subject land which is pending for thelast 32 years has not started its journey as yet and this is calledthe travesty of injustice to a person who is indisputedly the title AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aholder still unable to enjoy the property. In the given facts andcircumstances, in exercise of the power under Article 142 and todo complete justice to the parties, the appellants are directed tohand over physical possession of the subject land free from allencumbrances to the respondents within the stipulated period.[Para 43, 44][274-D-G]B

Om Prakash Agarwal and Others v. Batara Behera andOthers (1999) 3 SCC 231 : [1999] 1 SCR 969 – heldinapplicable.

Umed Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others 1997CSCC Online Del 842 – disapproved.

Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha and Others 2010SCC Online DEL 1334 – approved.

Case Law Reference

D[1999] 1 SCR 969held inapplicablePara 38

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3828of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2012 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 591 of 2008.

ERakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Sidharth Gupta, Kushal Sarkar, R. C.Kaushik, Advs. for the Appellants.

Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Anmol Chandan, Ms. Deepika Kalia, RishiKumar Singh Gautam, Chandra Pratap, Aditya Kaul, Arvind Rana,Vaishnavi, Bankey Bihari, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for theFRepondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RASTOGI, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and orderGdated 22[nd] November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Delhi holding that once the rural area is urbanized by issuanceof a notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal CorporationAct, 1957(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1957”), it ceases tobe governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1954") in sequel thereto andH

held that the proceedings under Act, 1954 were non est leaving theparties to agitate their claims/disputes before appropriate fora clarifyingthat all pleas in law shall remain available to the parties before theappropriate forum.

2. The facts in seriatim as manifest from the record are that oneMaman Singh who was a recorded Bhumidhar of the land admeasuring4 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 M in village Samepur, Delhi asalleged, sold the land to one Bhai Ram vide registered sale deed dated9[th] March, 1970. The respondents Narain Singh and Som Dutt havepurchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from ShriMaman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4[th] May, 1989. Later, theyapplied for mutation under Act, 1954 and their names were mutated on31[st] May, 1989.

3. It has been pleaded by the appellants that before the registeredsale deed dated 4[th] May, 1989 came to be executed by Maman Singh infavour of the respondents herein and their names were mutated on 31[st]May, 1989, the appellants had come into possession over the subjectland. The appellants later challenged the mutation order dated 31[st] May,1989 opened in favour of the respondents claiming adverse possessionby filing appeal under Section 64 of the Act 1954. After certain roundsof litigation, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutationpassed in favour of the respondents by Order dated 10[th] February, 1995holding that the transfer was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act,1954 and further ordered the land in dispute to be vested in Gaon Sabha.

4. It is relevant to mention that the Order of the FinancialCommissioner dated 10[th] February, 1995 wherein it was observed “landin dispute ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha” was never challenged bythe appellants whereas the respondents challenged the Order dated 10[th]February, 1995 by filing Writ Petition (civil) No. 670 of 1995 before thelearned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which came to be dismissedby judgment dated 14[th] July, 2008 and that became the subject matter ofchallenge at the instance of the respondents assailing in LPA No. 591 of2008.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court returned a finding thatonce the notification dated 23[rd] April, 1982 has been published in exerciseof power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 which expresslyurbanizes the subject land in question and brings within the scope and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aambit of Act, 1957, it no more remains rural area thus, all proceedingsunder the Act, 1954 stand non est leaving the parties to agitate theirclaims/disputes before appropriate fora with a clarification that all thepleas in law shall remain available to the parties before the appropriatefora which may be adopted for redressal of grievance under judgmentimpugned dated 22[nd] November, 2012 which is a subject matter ofBchallenge in appeal before us.

6. In this context, it may be noticed that respondents Narain Singhand Som Dutt had filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction along withan application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction. The matter at theCstage of temporary jurisdiction travelled to this Court in a special leavepetition filed at the instance of respondents which was dismissed byOrder dated 23[rd] January, 1992 with a direction to the revenue authoritiesto decide the matter in four months. Subsequently, by order dated 2[nd]September, 1992, this Court directed the concerned SHO to hand overDpossession to the appellants herein and pursuant to Order of this Court,the appellants are in possession of the subject land in question.

7. The main thrust of submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learnedsenior counsel for the appellants is that apart from the order passed bythis Court dated 2[nd] September, 1992 to hand over possession of theEsubject land to the appellants, it can further be supported from the noticeissued under Section 81 by SDM to the present appellants dated 18[th]January, 1984 which indicates that the appellants are in possession.

8. Learned counsel further submits that once Maman Singh hadsold the land by registered sale deed in favour of Bhai Ram on 9[th] March,F1970 and handed over possession thereof, he (Maman Singh) had noright, title and interest to execute the successive sale deed and he couldnot hand over possession to the respondents of the subject land. Thatapart, the possession handed over to the appellants has been upheld.

9. Learned counsel further submits that after taking holistic viewGof the Act, 1954 and of Act 1957, even after declaration of urbanizationby issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the Act 1957, it willnot cease the right of the parties inter se conferred under provisions ofthe Act 1954. There is no provision under the Act, 1957 which maysuggest issuance of the notification of urbanizing under Section 507(a)of the Act ceases automatically the provisions of the Act 1954. ThatHapart, Section 150(3) of the Act, 1954 specifically provides for the consequences when whole of Gaon Sabha cease to be a rural area byvirtue of Section 507 of the Act, 1957. The consequence of dissolutionof Gaon Sabha and sub- clause (e) of Section 150(3) specifically saysthat the provisions of this Act, 1954 shall apply.

10. Learned counsel submits that the Act, 1954 is one such lawwhich is a special Act relating to land reforms by virtue of Section 1(2)which extends to the whole of the UT of Delhi. The area covered underAct, 1957 is not so excluded. It creates rights of tenure holders andBhumidhar within the ambit of Section 5 and such rights can be acquiredin various ways. Under Chapter III, Section C relates to user of landand Section D pertains to transfer of land by Bhumidhar and Section Epertains to devolution and Section F pertains to partition. Thus, Act, 1954is a special code pertaining to the rights of Bhumidhar and other tenureholders.

11. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the Act, 1957 isconcerned, it is the Act which deals with Delhi Municipal Corporation.There is nothing in the Act, 1957 to suggest that it purports to regulatethe tenure of Bhumidhar in the UT of Delhi after the urbanization ofarea is notified. Since the purport of Act, 1957 is not to govern the holdingof the tenure, it has been specifically provided by Section 502 that otherlaws are not to be disregarded for the time being in force.

12. In substance, learned counsel submits that Act, 1954 continuesto operate even after urbanization under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957and further submits that the finding returned by the Division Bench ofthe High Court in the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable anddeserves to be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission,learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in OmPrakash Agarwal and Others Vs. Batara Behera and Others[1].

13. Learned counsel further submits that the Division Bench ofthe High Court has not taken note of the earlier view expressed by theDivision Bench of the High Court in Umed Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT ofDelhi and Others[2]and that the earlier Division Bench of the High Courtalso considered the scheme of Act, 1957 and Act, 1954 and has returneda finding that on issuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the Act1957, it may not cease the rights of the parties inter se existing under 11999(3) SCC 231

21997 SCC Online Del 842

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Act, 1954 and, in the given circumstances, judgment needs to beinterfered with by this Court.

14. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for therespondents, submits that the respondents Narain Singh and Som Duttpurchased 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 2 Bighas respectively from theBBhumidhar Maman Singh by a registered sale deed dated 4[th] May, 1989.So far as the right, title and interest on the subject property is concerned,it vested in favour of the respondents. The registered sale deed dated 4[th]May, 1989 has never been questioned by Bhai Ram who could be said tobe the person aggrieved by the subsequent sale transaction as has beenalleged by the appellants. Even the right claimed by the appellants ofCadverse possession is a weak right and not legally sustainable. In thisregard, the civil suit which has been filed at their instance is practically anon-starter because of pendency of the present appeal still the appellantshave no right, title and interest over the subject property in question.

15. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the scheme ofDthe Act, 1954 and of Act, 1957, while harmonizing, both are governed indifferent fields and once the notification has been published under Section507(a) declaring the land to be urbanized, which in the instant case is notdisputed, the mutation proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 standceased as the land does not exist to be rural area and, thus, no error hasEbeen committed by the Division Bench of the High Court in returning afinding that all mutation proceedings stand ceased after the publicationof the notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957.

16. Learned counsel further submits that this is the consistentview of the Delhi High Court and apart from the judgment impugned,Fthis very question and effect of issuance of the notification under Section507(a) of the Act, 1957 was earlier examined by the High Court in Smt.Indu Khorana Vs. Gram Sabha and Others[3]which was decided on26[th] March, 2010 and after examining the scheme of Act, 1954 and Act,1957, it was held that once the rural area is declared to be urbanized byissuance of notification under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, provisionsGof the Act, 1954 cease to apply.

17. Learned counsel further submits that after the matter beingexamined by the Division Bench of the High Court by two differentBenches, this being consistently followed in the later judgments by the High Court of Delhi and unless this Court comes to the conclusion thatinterpretation as exposed of the Act, 1954 and Act, 1957 are completelyperverse and unsustainable, ordinarily may not be interfered with by thisCourt.

18. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the presentrespondents are concerned, despite holding right, title and interest in thesubject land in question, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 4[th]May, 1989, and their name being mutated at one stage on 31[st] May,1989, in the given circumstances, at least appellants have no legal rightto hold possession of the subject land although the suit has been filed atthe instance of the respondents and submits that this Court may considerto restore possession in favour of the respondents to avoid multiplicity oflitigation in the interest of justice.

19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with theirassistance perused the material available on record.

20. The factual matrix which has come on record is not disputedbetween the parties. The question of law that raised for consideration isthat once the rural area is urbanized by issuance of notification underthe Act 1957, what will be the effect to the provisions of the Act, 1954 insequel thereto.

21. We would like to take a bird’s eye view of the relevant provisionof the Acts to examine the question raised for our consideration.

22. The Act, 1954 was enacted with an object to create a uniformbody of peasant proprietors without intermediaries, for the unification ofthe tenancy laws in force in Delhi and to make provisions for othermatters connected therewith.

23. Section 1(2) of the Act, 1954 extends to the whole UnionTerritory of Delhi, but shall not apply to the areas notified in Section1(2)(a) of the Act, 1954, i.e. such an area which are or may before thefirst day of November, 1956 be included in a Municipality or a notifiedarea under the relevant Acts.

24. It may be apposite to take note of the relevant provisions ofthe Act before we appreciate the effect and ambit of Act, 1954 whichare as follows:- “1. (I) This Act may be called the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

[2023] 2 S.C.R.

(2) It extends to the whole of the Union territory of Delhi, butshall not apply to- A

(a) the areas which are or may before the first day ofNovember, 1956 be included in a Municipality or a NotifiedArea under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911,Bor a Cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonments Act,1924,

3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the Context otherwise requires-(1) to (4)…..

‘’(5) “Delhi town” means the areas which immediately beforethe establishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi wereincluded in the limits of Delhi Municipality, Civil Station NotifiedArea, West Delhi Municipality and the Fort Notified Area; C

(6) to (12)….

D(l3) “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means land held oroccupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture oranimal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming andincludes- (a) buildings appurtenant thereto, E(b) village abadis,

(c) grovelands,

(d) lands for village pasture or land covered by water and usedfor growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed ofa river and used for casual or occasional cultivation, F

but does not include-

land occupied by buildings in belts of areas adjacent to Dehitown, which the Chief Commissioner may by a notification inthe Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto; G150. (1) & (2)….

(3) If the whole of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included inrural areas as defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957, by virtue of a notification under section 507 of that Act, theGaon Sabha constituted for that area shall thereupon standHdissolved and on such dissolution,- (a) all properties, movable and immovable, and all interests ofwhatsoever nature and kind therein including moneys held inGaon Sabha Area Fund, vested in the Gaon Sabha immediatelybefore such dissolution, shall, with all rights of whatsoeverdescription, used, enjoyed or possessed by Gaon Sabha, vestin the Central Government; (b) all duties, obligations and liabilities incurred, all contractsentered into and all matters and things engaged to be done by,with or for the Gaon Sabha before such dissolution shall bedeemed to have been incurred, entered into or engaged to bedone with or for the Central Government;

(c) all rates, taxes, fees, rents and other charges due to theGaon Sabha immediately before such dissolution shall bedeemed to be due to the Central Government; (d) all suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings institutedor which might have been instituted by or against the GaonSabha may be continued or instituted by or against the Unionof India;

(e) the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to lands insuch Gaon Sabha area, not being lands vested in the CentralGovernment clause (a), subject to the modification thatreferences therein to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayat shallbe construed as references to the Central Government; (f) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) ofsub-section (2) of section 1, the provisions of sections 84, 85,86A and 87 and any other provision of this Act relating toejectment of persons shall apply in relation to lands vested inthe Central Government under clause (a) subject to themodification that references therein to Gaon Sabha and GaonPanchayat shall be construed as references to the CentralGovernment.

(4) If only a portion of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be includedin rural areas as aforesaid the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabhaconstituted for that area shall cease in respect of that portion andupon such cesser, the provisions of clause (a) to (f) of sub-section

(3) shall apply to that portion as if the Gaon Sabha had been A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconstituted for that portion alone and dissolved, subject to suchincidental and consequential orders as the Chief Commissionermay deem necessary to make.

(5) If the size of a Gaon Sabha Area is reduced as a result of aportion thereof ceasing to be included in rural areas as aforesaidBand the Chief Commissioner is of the opinion that the size of theGaon Sabha area is not sufficiently large to be under thejurisdiction of a separate Gaon Sabha, he may, by notification inthe Official Gazette, declare that such Gaon Sabha area shall,from a date to be specified in the notification, cease to be aseparate Gaon Sabha area and the Gaon Sabha constituted thereCfor shall stand dissolved and may direct that the said area shall beincluded in one or more adjoining Gaon Sabha areas, and thereuponthe provisions of section 3 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954(Delhi Act 3 of 1955), shall, so far as may be, apply.”

25. The combined reading of the relevant provisions referred toDhereinabove clearly indicates that the Act, 1954 will not cover such areaas defined in the first instance which may or before the first day ofNovember, 1956 be included in a Municipality. The ‘land’ which hasbeen defined under Section 3(13) provides that except in sections 23and 24, such of the land held or occupied for purpose connected withEagriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture andpoultry farming and further includes other categories which are part ofland but at the same time, it does not include land occupied by building inbelts or areas adjacent to Delhi town.

26. ‘Delhi town’ has been defined under Section 3(5) of the ActFwhich clearly defines that areas which immediately before theestablishment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were included inthe limits of Delhi Municipality. There is complete exclusion of the landoccupied by buildings adjacent to Delhi town which falls before theestablishment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is not a land coveredfor the purpose by deciding rights of the parties under tenure holderGunder Chapter II of the Act, 1954.

27. At the same time, Section 150(3), (4) and (5) of the Act indicatethat if the Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas asdefined in the Act, 1957 by virtue of notification under Section 507 of theAct, the Gaon Sabha shall thereupon stand dissolved or if a portion ofHGaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as aforesaid, the

jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha for that area ceases in respect of thatportion and for that portion stands dissolved or to that extent, the size ofthe Gaon Sabha stands reduced as a result of a portion ceasing to beincluded in rural area as aforesaid.

28. Let us take a view of relevant provisions of Act, 1957 for thepresent purpose which are as under:- “2(52) “rural areas” means the areas of Delhi which immediatelybefore the establishment of a Corporation are situated within thelocal limits of the District Board of Delhi established under thePunjab District Boards Act, 1883 (Punjab Act 20 of 1883), butshall not include such portion thereof as may, by virtue of anotification under section 507, cease to be included in the ruralareas as herein defined; 2(61) “urban areas” means the areas of Delhi which are not ruralareas;

502. Other laws not to be disregarded— Save as provided in thisAct, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as authorisingthe disregard by a Corporation or any municipal authority or anymunicipal officer or other municipal employee of any law for thetime being in force.

507. Special provisions as to rural areas.— Notwithstandinganything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act,—

(a) a Corporation with the previous approval of the Government,may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that anyportion of the rural areas shall cease to be included therein andupon the issue of such notification that portion shall be includedin and form part of the urban areas; (b) a Corporation with the previous approval of the Governmentmay, by notification in the Official Gazette,—

(i) exempt the rural areas or any portion thereof from suchof the provisions of this Act as it deems fit,

(ii) levy taxes, rates, fees and other charges in the ruralareas or any portion thereof at rates lower than those atwhich such taxes, rates, fees and other charges are leviedin the urban areas or exempt such areas or portion fromany such tax, rate, fee or other charge.”

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A(c) a Corporation shall pay a Gaon Sabha-

(i) an amount equal to the proceeds of the tax on profession,trades, callings and employments, as and when that tax is leviedin the Gaon Sabha area, and

(ii) an amount equal to such portion of the proceeds of theBproperty taxes on lands and buildings in that area as may fromtime to time be determined by a Corporation, after deductingthe cost of collection from such proceeds.

29. The Act, 1957 has been primarily enacted to have a uniformbody to administer the Delhi Municipal Corporation to consolidate variousCbodies, local authorities, looking after the municipal affairs and tocentralise for better administration and to overcome the problems beingfaced by various authorities as well as by the public.

30. Section 2(52) defines the ‘rural areas’ which demonstratesthat the area of Delhi which immediately before the establishment of aDCorporation, falls within the local limits of the District Board of Delhi, beconsidered to be the rural area but that shall not include such portionthereof which by virtue of notification under Section 507 declared to beurbanized and it ceases to be included under the term ‘rural areas’ andSection 2(61) defines ‘urban areas’ as the areas of Delhi which are notrural areas.E

31. To simplify it further, once there is a notification issued by thecompetent authority in exercise of power under Section 507(a) which isa special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the rural areascease to be included therein upon issuance of the notification and shallFthereafter include in and form part of the urban areas in terms of thenotification. Sub-clause (b) and (c ) of Section 507 deals with the natureof grant of exemption or levy of taxes for such of the areas falling withinthe scope and ambit of the Act, 1957.

32. At the same time, Section 502 on which the learned counselfor the appellants has given more emphasis, it only provides that thisGAct(Act 1957) shall not be construed authorizing disregard to any lawfor the time being in force and rightly so for the reason, that scope andambit of the Act, 1954, in no manner, has to be disregarded by theprovisions of the Act, 1957.

H

33. At this stage, if we look into the Delhi Development Act,1957(hereinafter being referred to as the “DDA Act”), it nowhere makesa distinction in the nature of land whether it is rural or urban, as the casemay be. The DDA Act, 1957 is enacted with an object of developmentof Delhi according to sanctioned plan and for matters ancillary thereto.If we consider the term ‘development’ as defined under Section 2(e) ofthe DDA Act, it clearly notifies that such of the area which has beendeclared to be a development area under Section 12, after publication inthe official gazette, shall be considered a development area within thepurport of the Act and it is a complete code in itself for the purpose ofdisposal of land. The expression ‘land’ in Section 2(l) is in reference tothe Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

34. Relevant Sections of Act, 1957 are reproduced hereunder:- “2(e) “development area” means any area declared to be adevelopment area under sub-section (1) of section 12; 2(l) the expression “land” shall have the meaning assigned to it insection 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

12. Declaration of development areas and development of land inthose and other areas.—

(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, theCentral Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,declare any area in Delhi to be a development area for the purposesof this Act:

Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless aproposal for such declaration has been referred by the CentralGovernment to the Authority and the Municipal Corporation ofDelhi for expressing their views thereon within thirty days fromthe date of the receipt of the reference or within such furtherperiod as the Central Government may allow and the period sospecified or allowed has expired.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall notundertake or carry out any development of land in any area whichis not a development area.

(3) After the commencement of this Act no development of landshall be undertaken or carried out in any area by any person orbody (including a department of Government) unless,—

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(i)where that area is a development area, permission for suchdevelopment has been obtained in writing from the Authorityin accordance with the provisions of this Act;

(ii) where that area is an area other than a development area,approval of, or sanction for, such development has beenBobtained in writing from the local authority concerned orany officer or authority thereof empowered or authorisedin this behalf, in accordance with the provisions made by orunder the law governing such authority or until suchprovisions have been made, in accordance with theprovisions of the regulations relating to the grant ofCpermission for development made under the Delhi (Controlof Building Operations) Act, 1955 (53 of 1955), and in forceimmediately before the commencement of this Act:

Provided that the local authority concerned may [subject tothe provisions of section 53A] amend those regulations in theirDapplication to such area.

(4) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any areano development shall be undertaken or carried out in that areaunless such development is also in accordance with such plans.

E(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (3) and(4) development of any land begun by any department ofGovernment or any local authority before the commencement ofthis Act may be completed by that department or local authoritywithout compliance with the requirements of those sub-sections.”

F35. So far as the DDA Act is concerned, it is only for the purposeof development of Delhi according to the sanctioned master plan andzonal development plan notified under Section 7 of the Act and for mattersancillary thereto regardless of fact whether it is a rural area or urbanizedwhich is for different purposes covered by the provisions of the Act,1954 and Act 1957.G

36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has beenpublished in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957,the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, theproceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and loses itsHlegal significance.

37. We approve the view expressed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court in Smt. Indu Khorana (supra) which was later followed inthe judgment impugned by the Division Bench of the High Court dated22[nd] November, 2012.

38. So far as the judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Agarwal& Others (supra) on which learned counsel for the appellants has placedreliance is concerned, in the first instance, there was no such notificationunder the relevant laws which declared the land to be urbanized aspublished in the instant case under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957 andthe objection raised by the learned counsel was in reference to the scopeand ambit of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 and the question waswhether the reforms Act has any application to the land which is a partof the master plan of the city under the provisions of the Orissa LandReforms Act, 1960. In that reference, the observations were made bythis Court as to what extent the provisions of the reforms Act will applyin reference to agricultural or other purposes. This Court was veryconscious that no notification had been published in the case on handwhich reserved for urbanization within the scope and ambit of Section73(c) of the Orrisa Land Reforms Act, 1960 which, in our view, may notbe of any assistance to the appellants.

39. So far as the submission made in reference to the earlierjudgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi which hasnot been looked into by the Division Bench under the impugned judgmentin the case of Umed Singh(supra) is concerned, on principle, we arenot in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court in UmedSingh(supra), at the same time, we would like to observe that the casewas in reference to consolidation notification issued on 8[th] September,1993, and what will be the effect of Consolidation and Prevention ofFragmentation Act, 1948, in that reference, the High Court examinedthe scope and ambit of the Act, 1957.

40. Before we conclude, we may like to observe that therespondents purchased the subject land from Maman Singh (recordedBhumidhar) by a registered sale deed dated 4[th] May, 1989 and mutationalso, at one time, was opened in their names on 31[st] May, 1989. Later,they were compelled to file a civil suit in the year 1990 for taking overpossession of the subject property in question.

41. It reveals from the record that after a few rounds of litigation,the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of mutation by Order A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adated 10[th] February, 1995, the matter later travelled to the Division Benchof the High Court of Delhi and by judgment dated 22[nd] November, 2012,it was held that once the rural area is urbanized by issuance of notificationunder Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, it ceases to be governed by theprovisions of Act, 1954.B42. What persuaded this Court is that even after upholding the B42. What persuaded this Court is that even after upholding thejudgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 22[nd] November,2012, it gives a fresh life to the respondents to go ahead in takingpossession of the subject property despite the fact that registered saledeed dated 4[th] May, 1989 was executed in their favour by MamanSingh(Bhumidhar) but they are still deprived of possession and theCdefence of the appellants in counter is that they are in possession of thesubject land by adverse possession. At the same time, this Court mayalso record that the registered sale deed dated 4[th] May, 1989 executedin favour of the respondents by Maman Singh (Bhumidhar) was neverthe subject matter of challenge and no such proceedings are pending inDthe Court of law.

43. At this point of time, it reminds us that the civil suit filed at theinstance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject landwhich is pending for the last 32 years has not started its journey as yetand this is called the travesty of injustice to a person who is indisputedlyEthe title holder still unable to enjoy the property.

44. In the given facts and circumstances, in exercise of our powerunder Article 142 of the Constitution and to do complete justice to theparties, we direct the appellants to hand over physical possession of thesubject land free from all encumbrances to the respondents within aFperiod of two months from the date of passing of this Order. If theappellants fail to hand over possession within the time stipulated, it willbe open to the respondents to make an application to the concernedjurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and after obtaining necessary orderswith assistance of the local administration may proceed for takingpossession of the subject land. It goes without saying that the possessionGhas to be handed over in terms of the registered sale deed dated 4[th]May, 1989 which has been executed by Maman Singh (Bhumidhar) inthe names of the respective respondents.

45. The pending civil suit in the above terms stands disposed of.

H

46. We find no substance in the instant appeal. The same is herebydismissed with the observations afore-stated. No costs.

47. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H