MAYA DEVI vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2024-04-09 Information

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 15300/2023 & CM APPLs. 61314-15/2023, 13020/2024, 13032/2024
MAYA DEVI ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kameshwer Mishra and Mr. S. C. Nunwal, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Manchanda, ASC for GNCTD alongwith Ms.Nancy Shah and Mr. Haridas, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Mr. Rahul Chauhan and Mr. Paramveer Chauhan, Advocates for applicant in CM APPL. 13020/2024 and 13032/2024.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Lalita Devi has been served by ordinary mode. Affidavit of service of the petitioner indicating service having been affected upon respondent no.2 by speed post and courier has not been filed. Learned counsel seeks two weeks time to file the same.
2. On account of the fact that the respondent no.2 has already been served and there is no appearance on her behalf. Accordingly, respondent no.2 is proceeded ex-parte.
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the following relief:
a) To issue writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby set aside the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by Respondent-2 i.e. SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi in Execution Petition 7744-49 titled as “Lalita Devi Vs. Maya Devi & Ors.” & order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.- 02/2021 titled as “Maya Devi Vs. Lalita & Anr.” and direct to stay the compliance of order dated 29.04.2022, in the interest of justice.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 has filed a suit under Section 36 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 (in short DLR Act, 1954) bearing Suit no. 360/RA/2006, captioned Smt. Lalita Devi vs. Smt. Maya & Anr. By virtue thereof, the respondent no.2 sought permission to let out her share in the holding i.e. 1/3 share of agricultural land measuring 13 bighas comprising in Khasra no.213 situated in the revenue estate of village Mukandpur and other ancillary reliefs.
5. During the pendency of such suit, the respondent no.2 claims to have sold her share to one Sh. Madan Pal Gupta on 21.08.2018. Consequent upon such sale, Sh. Madan Pal Gupta filed a Civil Suit before JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ (District North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, on 13.09.2018, against the petitioner as also respondent no.2 herein. The said court passed an interim order on 11.02.2019 directing the petitioner and other defendants therein to refrain from any illegal construction or creating any third party interest.
6. In the meanwhile, on 12.03.2021, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent no.1 herein) allowed the suit of respondent no.2 thereby giving liberty to her to let out 1/3rd share of land out of 13 bighas i.e., 4 bigha 7 biswas from western side of property of which she has been a cultivator in possession of Khasra no.213.
7. Consequent thereto, the petitioner herein was constrained to file an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2021 of the SDM before the Deputy Commissioner. While the said was pending, on 28.04.2022, the petitioner claims to have received a notice of execution, from the office of respondent no.1, to appear on 29.04.2022. On 29.04.2022, respondent no.1 dismissed all objections raised by the petitioner and allowed the execution petition filed by respondent no.2 by passing the impugned order.
8. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of W.P.(C) 6969/2022 titled Maya Devi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. and by order dated 04.05.2022, this Court had granted stay from execution of the said order during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner filed before the Deputy Commissioner.
9. On 31.05.2023, the Deputy Commissioner reserved the case for final orders and on 26.09.2023, the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner challenged the same further by filing a second appeal before the Financial Commissioner. By an order dated 29.11.2023 in the present petition, this Court had stayed the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 of the Revenue Assistant, order dated 26.09.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner and as also the proceedings in the second appeal, pending before the Financial Commissioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that primary issue to be considered by this Court is that by way of Notification dated 16.05.2017 issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, Village Mukandpur stood Urbanised and appears at serial no. 38 of the said notification and consequently, as to what would be effect of the same on the present dispute.
12. Learned counsel submits that the issuance of said notification would render the provisions of DLR Act, 1954 redundant and the same would cease to apply to the lands pertaining to the village Mukandpur. He points out that order of the Revenue Assistant having been passed on 12.03.2021 and 28.04.2022, as also the order dated 26.09.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner on the First Appeal filed by the petitioner would also become non-est in law directly as a result of the Urbanisation. He draws support from the judgment of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Anr vs. Narain Singh & Ors reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, for the said proposition.
13. According to learned counsel, the said orders would become non-est in law and has to be necessarily set aside by this Court.
14. Mr. Daleep Dhyani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in CM APPL.13020/2024 seeking impleadment of the applicant as respondent no.3, submit that the applicant is the purchaser namely, Madan Pal Gupta, referred to by the petitioner in his petition.
15. According to Mr. Daleep Dhyani, it is not disputed by the petitioner that Shri Madan Pal Gupta is the purchaser of the subject land from Smt. Lalita Devi. He also submits that in fact, the petitioner has also admitted that a suit for declaration filed by the said Madan Pal Gupta who seeks impleadment, has been filed in the year 2018 itself, arraying the petitioner also as a defendant. He submits that his impleadment to the present petition is necessitated for such reasons.
16. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner had resisted the said impleadment on the ground that documents of sale are not those covered by the Registration Act, 1908, and fall foul of the ratio laid down in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1526 and as such, that sale would be no sale in the eyes of law.
18. Be that as it may.
19. This Court is not to discern the veracity of the title documents since the applicant has been admitted to be the plaintiff in suit in which the petitioner is also a defendant, copy whereof has been filed in the present petition and as such, it would be improper not to implead the applicant Madan Pal Gupta as respondent in the present petition. In that view of the matter, the applicant Madan Pal Gupta is now impleaded as respondent no.3. Amended memo of parties be filed within one week.
20. The Notification dated 16.05.2017 appears to predate the orders passed both by the Revenue Assistant, as also the Deputy Commissioner in first appeal. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Anr vs. Narain Singh & Ors (supra) particularly para 36 is as under:
36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and loses its legal significance.
21. Perusal of the aforesaid observation would clearly indicate that not only the provisions of DLR Act, 1954 would cease to apply, but also, according to the ratio, all pending proceedings as on the date of notification would also became non est in law.
22. In that view of the matter, it cannot be doubted that the aforesaid two impugned orders passed by the Revenue Assistant as also by the Deputy Commissioner in the First Appeal would become non est in law.
23. Though, the orders, post notification have been held to be non est in law, however, parties who are effected cannot be left without redressal mechanism.
24. In view of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3432, as also the judgment dated 14.03.2024 in Praveen Jain vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. bearing W.P.(C) 3827/2024, passed by this Court, parties are at liberty to approach Civil Courts for redressal of their grievances, if any, within a period of 60 days from today.
25. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of alongwith all pending applications with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
APRIL 9, 2024/ssc

W.P.(C) 15300/2023 Page 6 of 6