Proceedings u/s 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act cannot be initiated or proceeded with as soon as a urbanization notification by DMC or DDA has been published or the area becomes an urban area
In the matter of Sanvik Engineers Pvt Ltd vs. GNCTD (WPC 5627/2020) before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court pronounced on 04.02.2022.
FACTS
The petitioner here purchased agricultural land by way of a sale deed dated 5 May 2010. Proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR in respect of that land are stated to have commenced consequent to the submission of a report dated 22 March 2016 by the Halqa Patwari alleging that construction activity was being undertaken on agricultural land. The land had come to be included in a notification issued under Section 507 of the DMC Act on 16 May 2017. The SDM by an order of 15 June 2019 closed the proceedings. The Gaon Sabha went in appeal before the District Magistrate (DM). During the pendency of the appeal before the DM, the Petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the Appeal pending before the DM who had reversed the order of SDM and vested the land in Gaon Sabha.
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATION
The Hon’ble Court bifurcated the issue into set of 4 cases which has been detailed out in a tabular manner hereinbelow:
| CASE | ISSUE | OBSERVATIONS |
| CASE 1 | Where proceedings have not been initiated and notifications under the DMC/DDA Acts intervene. | That where no proceedings have been drawn under section 81 of the DLR prior to the issuance of the notification issued under section 507 of the DMC, no authority or jurisdiction would be retained to invoke the same. Once the land stands comprised in notifications issued under DMC or the DDA Acts, it would stand excluded from the application of the DLR.
|
| CASE 2 | Where although proceedings have been initiated or a conditional order made, notifications come to be issued before a final order directing ejectment and vesting is passed. | Section 81 of the DLR is primarily concerned with ensuring that rural land is not diverted to uses other than those specified in Section 3(13) of the DLR which defines ‘land’ as the land held and meant for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry. If that be the primary objective of Section 81, it would be wholly illogical to require the owner or the occupier to restore the land to its agricultural state even though the surrounding area may have become totally urbanized. The proceedings where they have merely reached the stage of initiation or conditional order have been passed, must abate and be liable to be dropped or closed. |
| CASE 3 | Where the notifications come to be issued after a final order of ejectment and vesting comes to be made. | The orders under Sections 81 and 82 of DLR in which the rights and interests in the land consequentially stand ceded and delivered to the Gaon Sabha without any further act or deed being required in law. This passage of title and interests occurs by force of law. The Gaon Sabha when vested with those rights in terms of the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 of DLR is not enjoined in law to take any further steps for establishment of its rights and title over the land. Once the occupier comes to be divested of title by operation of law, those orders under sections 81 and 82 of DLR would remain intact and untouched by subsequent notification issued under section 507 of DMC. This would of course not detract from the occupier assailing those orders on grounds which may otherwise be available in law.
|
| CASE 4 | Where a notification comes to be issued during the pendency of an appeal or revision against a final order at the behest of the landholder or Gaon Sabha. | The basic consequence that flows from the issuance of those notifications is that the administration and control of that land comes to be governed and regulated by a different statute but it would lead to a situation where the owner or occupier would be left bereft of the right to assail an order of eviction or vesting. Similarly, the Gaon Sabha would stand denuded of the right to challenge orders that may suffer from patent illegalities and that may have been passed by authorities while the DLR still applied. The right to institute or continue pending appeals against final orders passed under Section 81 of DLR would not stand extinguished merely because the land has in the meanwhile fallen under the control of the DMC or the DDA. |
It was further observed that Section 81 is primarily concerned with ensuring that land falling within the ambit of the DLR is not used for purposes other than those sanctioned under the enactment. Vesting under Sections 81 and 82 clearly establishes the legislative intent to divest the occupant of all rights claimed in the land and transfer absolute title and interest in the Gaon Sabha. Once the area has come to be urbanized and stands comprised in notifications issued under the DMC or the DDA Acts, the Respondents would stand denuded of all jurisdiction and authority to initiate proceedings under Section 81 of the DLR thereafter.
It was further observed in regards to the argument of continuation of proceedings as per Section 150(3)(d) of the DLR which provides that upon the publication of the urbanization notification u/s 507 of the DMC Act, any suit, proceedings initiated or against the Gaon Sabha may be continued by the Union of India, the Hon’ble Court rejected the argument observing the fact that the issuance of a notification under the DMC Act results in not just the dissolution of the Gaon Sabha but the land then coming to be governed by the provisions of the DMC or the DDA Acts. It was also noted that Section 150(3)(d) of the Act uses the expression “may be continued….”. which viewed in light of the scheme and intent of Sections 81 and 82, the said provision would not warrant the continuation of eviction proceedings.
It was also made clear that no power stands conferred upon Revenue Assistant/ SDM to undertake a merit review of his own order. The authority to review one’s own decision made in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers, must be founded on an express conferment of power by statute. It is not an inherent power liable to be recognized as inhering in authorities generally. The inherent power to review stands confined to situations which would fall with the ambit of a “procedural review”.
Lastly, it was also held that the urbanization notifications of the DMC and DDA Acts have no retroactive application and these notifications cannot ipso facto be held to have the effect of obliterating the passage of title in the land to the Gaon Sabha which has come about prior in point of time. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that issuance of these notifications constitutes and results in a transformative shift with respect to the administration and control of land forming part thereof. The land then becomes subject to a completely different and distinct statutory regime. The application of the DMC and DDA Acts to the area results in the creation of new obligations and liabilities. As these consequences flow naturally from publication of the notifications, the Hon’ble Court held that orders of vesting which came to be passed prior to the promulgation of notifications under the DMC and the DDA Acts would remain intact and cannot be recognized as being set at naught by virtue of those subsequent event.