[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Naresh Kumar Bansal vs Jai Narain Khatri And Others on 24 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT-03-000313-2020
RCA No.1/2020
In the matter of :
Naresh Kumar Bansal
and Sh. Krishan Kumar Bansal
both Sons of Sh. Laxmi Chand,
R/o 2063, Narela, Mandi,
Delhi-110040.
...Appellant
Versus
1. Jai Narayan Khatri
S/o Lt. Sh. Rattan Singh,
R/o H. No. 510, Pana Udyan,
Narela, Delhi-110040.
2. Tehsidar/ N.T. Narela
Office at B.D.O. Block,
Alipur, Delhi-110036
Through Director Panchayat
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi,
N.C.T. Delhi.
3. Smt. Chameli Devi,
Widow of Sh. Ram Kiran,
R/o 2371, T/18, Bawana Road,
Narela, Delhi-110040.
4. Smt. Dhankaur
W/o Lt. Sh. Om Parkash,
R/o Village Mamoorpur,
H. No. 1861, Narela
Delhi-110040.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
17:59:52 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 1 of 22
5. Anil Kumar,
s/o Sh. Sat Narain
r/o Deep Chand Mandi Gharonda,
District Panipat-Haryana.
6. Union of India (Proforma Party)
Through Secretary Ministry of Home
....Respondents
Appellant represented by : Sh. Mukesh Bhardwaj
Respondent no.1 represented by: Ms. Meena Mehtani
Date of Institution 21.01.2020
Date of conclusion of arguments 19.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 24.07.2025
Appeal under Order 41(1) of the code of civil procedure,
1908 on behalf of the appellant thereby seeking setting aside
of impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed
by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Central-02, Tis Hazari
courts, Delhi in suit no. 156/2004 titled as Jai Narayan Khatri
Vs. Tehsildar and Others.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal assails the judgment and decree
dated 10.05.2013 rendered by Ld. Civil Judge, Central-02,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 156/2004 titled Jai
Narain Khatri v. Tehsildar & Ors.
Factual Background
2. The respondent no.1/plaintiff instituted a civil suit
seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction
against the appellant and respondent no.3-5, which
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:00:00 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 2 of 22
culminated in a decree in favour of the plaintiff vide
judgment dated 10.05.2013.
3. The plaintiff, claiming to be a co-sharer along with
others in agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 52/1, 52/2,
52/3 and 53/5/1 situated in the revenue estate of Village
Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi-110040, contended that the said
land was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887 and was under the actual cultivatory possession of
the co-sharers.
4. It was averred that Defendant No. 1, without
authority and in violation of law, effected an entry in the
revenue records through order no. Burvey 0-4, Sumar 0891,
bearing reference no. 128/T/M dated 08.01.2004, in favour
of a person who had passed away approximately 1.5 years
prior to the said entry. The plaintiff contended that such entry
was legally untenable, having been made in the name of a
deceased person, and was liable to be declared void ab initio.
5. The plaintiff further relied on the revenue record,
alleging that his name and the names of other co-sharers were
recorded as owners under Khana No. 2, while under Khana
No. 3, one Sardare (since deceased) was shown as the
cultivator. It was contended that a mere cultivator held no
legal right or entitlement to transfer the ownership of the said
land. Digitally signed
by NITISH
NITISH KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.24
18:00:06
+0530RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 3 of 22
6. Allegations were levelled against Sardare and one
R.P. Singhal, S/o Sh. Deep Chand, who purportedly
conspired in 1996 to illegally alienate the suit land by
executing a forged and unlawful Will in favour of Defendant
Nos. 2 to 5, relying upon a patently unlawful order dated
24.04.1981 passed in the matter titled Chandgi S/o Harphool
v. Union of India & Ors. by Sh. Nathu Singh, Revenue
Assistant, Delhi. It was alleged that the plaintiff’s father and
his paternal brothers were deliberately excluded from the
said proceedings.
7. The plaintiff further pleaded that said order was
obtained through collusion with revenue authorities,
misrepresentation before the Presiding Officer, and
concealment of material facts. The grievance extended to a
collusive appeal preferred by Sh. Jai Gopal Malik & Ors. in
Case No. 106/ADM/LA/81 and a revision filed as Case No.
239/82/CA before the Hon’ble Finance Commissioner. The
plaintiff submitted that these proceedings were vitiated by
fraud and only came to his knowledge during the pendency
of Suit No. 24/04 titled Jai Narain Khatri v. Rajender Prasad
Singh before the court of Sh. Naveen Arora, Ld. Civil Judge,
which was eventually withdrawn on 15.03.2004 upon
statement of the defendant.
8. The plaintiff also instituted Suit No. 53/04 titled Jai
Narain Khatri v. Harpal Singh Parmar before the Court of Sh.
D.K. Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge, seeking relief of permanent
NITISH Digitally signed
by NITISH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:00:14 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 4 of 22
injunction, which too was withdrawn on 16.03.2004 on the
statement of the defendant.
9. A legal notice dated 16.02.2006 was served upon
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 through Advocate Mr. R.K. Khatri;
however, no reply was received thereto.
10. The plaintiff asserted that subsequent to the revenue
order dated 08.01.2004, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 began
coercing and threatening Defendant No. 1 to dispossess the
plaintiff by unlawful means. On 16.03.2004, at around 10:00
AM, while the plaintiff was engaged in cultivation,
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 allegedly arrived with construction
materials and labourers to raise unauthorized structures over
the suit land and attempted to forcibly dispossess him. Their
efforts were thwarted due to the timely intervention of
neighbouring agriculturists, though they departed while
issuing renewed threats of future action.
11. On the following morning, i.e., 17.03.2004 at
approximately 9:00 AM, the aforementioned defendants
returned with additional labourers and anti-social elements,
again attempting to dispossess the plaintiff. Once again,
timely resistance by local cultivators and elders of the village
prevented any unlawful construction or dispossession.
However, threats of further escalation were repeated,
including intentions to return with armed force and raise a
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:00:20 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 5 of 22
godown over the suit property. The aforementioned facts led
to the institution of the suit before the Ld. Trial Court.
12. The trial court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration, as sought? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction, as sought? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD.
4. Whether suit is barred by Section 185 of DLR
Act? OPD.
5. Whether there is no cause of action in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant?
OPD.
6. Whether suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2
CPC?OPD.
7. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under
Section 80 CPC? OPD.
8. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
9. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary party? OPD.
10. Relief.
13. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Sh. DK
Bansal as PW-2. Defendant no. 1 did not appear from the
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 18:00:27 +0530
Date: 2025.07.24
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 6 of 22
very beginning of the case and it was proceeded exparte vide
order dated 22.05.2004. Thereafter, defendant no. 6 also
stopped appearing and he was proceeded exparte vide order
dated 16.09.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff led his evidence
and defendant nos.2 to 5 stopped appearing and their right to
cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses was closed vide order
dated 04.09.2012 and they were proceeded exparte vide
order dated 24.11.2012
14. The Ld. Trial Court finally decreed that the suit of the
plaintiff in his favour and against the defendants and the Will
and any other document executed by cultivator Sh. Sardare in
favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5 were declared to be null and
void. It was held by Ld. Trial Court that Delhi Land Reforms
Act is not applicable to the suit land and that the Sardare was
cultivator and could not have executed the Will in favour of
defendant no.2-6.
The plaintiff was also held entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction against the defendants and the
defendants were restrained from creating any third party
interest and raising unauthorised, illegal and unlawful
construction as also from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff
from the land of the plaintiff bearing its khasra no. 52/1 (4-
16), 52/2/3 (0-12), 52/03 (2-16) situated in the revenue estate
at village Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi-110040. Costs of the suit
were also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.
Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 SHARMA 18:00:33 +0530 RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 7 of 22 Grounds of appeal:
15. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment
and decree dated 10.05.2013 on the following grounds, inter
alia:
(a). The impugned judgment is not only unfair, unjust,
arbitrary but also bad in law and cannot be sustained.
(b). The Ld. Trial Court erred in passing the impugned
order without properly perusing the pleadings of the parties
and appreciating the documents placed on the court record
which resulted in passing the impugned judgment.
(c). The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit
filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein was an abuse of process
of law.
(d). The Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in
a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind
on the respective case of the parties. and the factual situation
emerging from the records.
(e). The impugned judgment and decree is illegal
arbitrary and was passed in clear disregard of the law. It is
submitted that all the agricultural lands situated in Delhi are
governed by the provisions of The Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954 (DLR Act). As per Section 1 of the DLR Act, the
provisions of the said Act are applicable over entire Delhi,
while, the Section 2 thereof repeals several Acts in so far as
they previously applied to the areas to which the DLR Act
was extended. It is stated that therefore, the impugned order
and judgment is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signedKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:00:42 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 8 of 22
the Ld. Trial Court has held that the suit land is governed
under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
(f). The Ld. Trial Court has not only failed to apply its
judicial mind upon the facts and material which was
available on the records of the case but also has acted in
complete disregard of the settled legal position. It is
submitted that the respondent No. 1 herein is not in
possession of any portion of the land involved in the present
proceedings. Thus, the impugned order is bad and non-est in
the eyes of law.
(g). It is stated that the Id. Trial Court has completely
ignored the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the matter titled as ‘Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi
Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors.‘ (2008) 4 SCC 594 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles
regarding maintainability of a simplicitor suit for injunction
inter-alia holding that, where the title of the Plaintiff is
disputed, the Plaintiff must also seek declaration of his title.
In the present proceedings the respondent No. 1 has not filed
suit for seeking title also. Thus the impugned judgment is in
violation of judgment (supra) and hence illegal and non-est
in the eyes of law.
(h). It is stated that Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms
Act read with Schedule-I to the said DLR Act not only bar a
civil suit but also provide a complete hierarchy of the courts.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India of India in the matter of
‘Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh‘ reported in 1970 (2) SCC 841 has
held that the DLR Act is a complete code in itself and the
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.24
18:00:48 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 9 of 22
civil courts are absolutely barred from entertaining any civil
suit concerning the orders passed under the said Act. In the
instant case, vide order dated 24.04.1981 one Sh. Chandgi
was declared Bhumindhar of the suit land which was
subsequently upheld by the court of Financial
Commissioner, Delhi. The only remedy lies with the
respondent No. 1 to file appropriate proceedings under the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 which he failed.
(i). It is stated that the Respondent herein instituted a suit
seeking relief of declaration thereby declaring the order
dated 08.01.2004 passed by Teshildar Narela whereby he has
implemented the orders passed in favour of Chandgi/Sardare
as well as declaring the Will (without even giving date
thereof or filing a copy thereof) executed by Sh. Sardare in
favour of the appellant, as null and void. The Respondent No.
1, further sought injunction thereby seeking to restrain the
appellant from raising construction etc. and dispossessing
from the land in question. It is submitted that the respondent
No. 1 herein is not in possession of any of the portion of the
land involved in the instant suit.
(j). The perversity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial
Court is reflected from the mere fact that though, on one
hand, declaration with respect to the order dated 08.01.2004
passed by Tehsildar has been declined on the ground that
copy of the same was not placed on the records of the suit.
However, the Will and other documents executed by
aforesaid Sh. Sardare for transferring/ bequeathing the suit
land in favour of the appellant (without even giving date
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:00:57 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 10 of 22
thereof) have been declared null and void even though the
copy thereof was also not filed on the records of the suit.
Further, the appellant has been restrained from creating third
party rights or raising construction on the Suit Land as well
as from dispossessing the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1,
herein) from the suit land though said Respondent No. I is not
in possession of any portion of the suit land.
(k). It is stated that in the instant case the Ld. Trial Court
has granted a relief which is more than what was prayed in
the plaint. It is pertinent to mention here that, the plaint
contained a relief to the effect that the Will, executed in
favour of the appellant by Sh. Sardare, be declared null and
void. However, the Ld. Trial Court has granted a decree
thereby declaring, not only the Will, but any other document
executed by Sh. Sardare in favour of the Appellant, as null
and void.
(l). It is stated that the perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 is also reflected from
the fact that the Respondent No. 1 has pleaded that the suit
land was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy
Act, which has been accepted by the Ld. Trail Court.
However the Punjab Tenancy Act is no more applicable on
the lands which are situated in the Union Territory of Delhi,
thus, was out of purview of the DLR Act.
(m). It is stated that while annulling the Will and other
documents executed by Sh. Sardare in favour of the
appellant, the Ld. Trial Court and contrary to settled position
of law, even in the face of findings of the Revenue Courts, Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:01:03 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 11 of 22
has held that said Sh. Sardare was a cultivator of the suit land
who could not have sold off any portion of the suit land. It is
submitted that, said conclusion of the Ld. Trial Court is in
absolute contradiction to the law laid down by this Hon’ble
Court in the matter titled as ‘Smt. Gain Devi Anand Vs.
Jeevan Kumar & Ors.’ reported in (1985) 2 SCC 683 wherein
it was held that tenancy rights are in the nature of property
which are transferable/ heritable and that transferability of
such rights is subject to only such restriction as may have
been statutorily laid down. In the instant case, no such
restriction was ever pleaded nor has been shown to be
existed. Thus, even if for the sake of arguments it is
presumed (though not admitted to be so) that Late Sh.
Sardare was merely a cultivator, even in such an event, there
was nothing to prevent said Sh. Sardare to transfer such
rights as he may have been possessing qua the suit land. It is
stated that thus, the Ld. Trial Court has committed a manifest
error of law which is on the face of records.
(n). It is stated that Section 41 (1) (h) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 bars a suit for injunction where an
alternative efficacious remedy is available, however, still the
Respondent No. 1 failed to prefer any proceedings thereby
seeking to upset the effect of the aforesaid orders passed by
the competent Revenue courts thereby declaring Chandgi,
succeeded by Sh. Sardare, as Bhumindar of the suit land.
(o). It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate
the contention of the appellant raised by him in his Written
Statement.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 18:01:08 +0530
Date: 2025.07.24
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 12 of 22
(p). It is stated that the impugned judgment is not only
bad in law but also meritless and misconceived.
(q). It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court has not decided the
case on the basis of statutes and the settled principles of law.
The judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is purely based on
conjectures and surmises and is bereft of any sound
proposition of law.
16. By way of the present appeal the appellant prayed for
setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated
10.05.2013 passed by Ld. Civil Judge Central-02, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi.
Arguments
17. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that the
learned Trial Court grossly erred in entertaining and deciding
the suit despite a clear statutory bar under Section 185 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which provides exclusive
jurisdiction to Revenue Courts for matters relating to
Bhumidhari rights. It is further argued that the Trial Court
wrongly applied the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which stands
repealed in Delhi post the enactment of the DLR Act. All
agricultural land in Delhi, including the suit land, is governed
by the DLR Act, making the entire foundation of the
impugned judgment legally untenable.
Digitally signed
by NITISH
NITISH KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.24
18:01:14
+0530RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 13 of 22
18. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for
respondents that the respondents did not seek adjudication of
Bhumidhari rights. The suit was limited to seeking
declaration of illegal revenue entries made in favour of a
deceased person, and to restrain unlawful dispossession. It is
argued that the Trial Court meticulously considered the
pleadings, evidence, and legal principles and the judgment is
founded on uncontroverted facts, and the appellant has failed
to demonstrate any perversity or substantial error that would
warrant interference.
Decision And Reasons
19. Upon a thorough review of the pleadings, evidence,
and arguments, this Court finds the appellants’ claim to be
justified and the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is required
to be set aside on the following grounds.
Applicable law- Punjab Tenancy Act or Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954
20. The Ld. Trial Court had observed that the Delhi Land
Reforms Act,1954 was not applicable to the suit land. In its
judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has referred to statement made
by PW-2 i.e. D.K.Bansal/ Halka Patwari of Village Bhorgarh
who stated that Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 is not
applicable to the suit land. In the considered opinion of this
court, reliance on the aforesaid statement of PW-2 by the Ld.
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:01:20 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 14 of 22
Trial Court in the absence of any explanation as to why the
said Act was not applicable, is improper.
21. Before Ld. Trial Court, it was the case of the
respondent/plaintiff that the suit land was governed by
Punjab Tenancy Act, and thus, the orders passed by Ld.
Revenue Assistant on 24.04.1981 u/s 13 of Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954 and Ld. Financial Commissioner in
appeal are without jurisdiction. It was stated that the said
orders shall be challenged by way of writ petition. However,
till the culmination of the suit no such writ petition was stated
to have been filed by the plaintiff.
It is interesting to note that vide said orders i.e. order
passed by Ld. Revenue Assistant, the bhumidari of the land
in Khasra No. 52/1, 52/2/2, 2/3 and 3/2 was conferred on Sh.
Chandgi i.e. the father of Sh. Sardare and from Sh. Sardare,
the defendant no.2-5 had purchased the property in question.
It is the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that Sh. Sardare could
not have executed the Will as he was not the bhumidar but a
cultivator in revenue record.
22. Thus, the issue as to whether the land is governed by
Punjab Tenancy Act,1887 or Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954
gained prominence. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to
Section 1 and 2 of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 which
provides as under:
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signedKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:01:26 +0530RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 15 of 22
Section 1 This Act may be called the Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954.
1. It extends to the whole of the Union territory of Delhi, but shall
not apply to–
(a) the areas which are or may before the first day of
November, 1956 be included in a Municipality or a
Notified Area under the provisions of the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911, or a Cantonment under the
provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924;
(b) areas included in any estate owned by the Central
Government or any local authority; and
(c) areas held and occupied for public purpose or a work
of public utility and declared as such by the Chief
Commissioner or acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, or any other enactment other than this Act,
relating to acquisition of land for a public purpose.
2. It shall come into force at once.
3. The declaration of the Chief Commissioner under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is held
and occupied for a public purpose or a work of public utility.
Section 2 – Repeal
1. The following Acts, in so far as they apply to areas to which this
Act extends, are hereby repealed:
(i) Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as modified by Punjab
Act No. 9 of 1939;
(ii) Agra Tenancy Act, 1901;
(iii) Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950;
(iv) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, in so far as its
provisions are inconsistent with this Act;
(v) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, in so far as its
provisions are inconsistent with this Act;
(vi) So much of any other law or of any rule having the
force of law for the time being in force as is inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act.
23. Thus, in view of the express repeal of the Punjab
Tenancy Act, 1887 by Section 2 of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954, the said Tenancy Act stood abrogated in its
application to Delhi except for lands falling within the scope
of the exceptions contemplated under Section 1(2) of the
Reforms Act-viz.,
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:01:32 +0530RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 16 of 22
(a) areas within a Municipality, Notified Area, or
Cantonment as of 1st November 1956,
(b) estates owned by the Central Government or a local
authority, and
(c) lands held or occupied for public purpose or work of
public utility duly declared by the Chief Commissioner or
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
24. A bare perusal of the plaint as filed by the plaintiff
would show that the plaintiff/respondent failed to plead any
factual or legal basis demonstrating that the suit property was
governed by the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
No specific averment was made as to how the suit land falls
within the scope of the exceptions carved out under Section
1(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
PW-2, examined on behalf of the plaintiff, merely made a
casual assertion that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was
not applicable to the suit property, but offered no substantive
reasoning or supporting material in that regard. From the
record, it is evident that the suit land is not covered under any
of the exceptions provided under Section 1(2) of the 1954
Act and by virtue of Section 2, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887
stands repealed in respect of areas to which the Delhi Land
Reforms Act applies.
25. Further, during the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the respondent was unable to clarify how the
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:01:38 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 17 of 22
Punjab Tenancy Act continued to apply to the suit land, and
instead relied solely on the testimony of PW-2, which upon
scrutiny appears to be a bare assertion unsupported by any
cogent explanation or documentary basis.
Although, it is forthcoming from the documents filed
on behalf of defendant no.2-5, that an objection regarding
non-applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 was taken
in proceedings before Ld. Revenue Assistant stating that the
suit land was initially an evacuee property, the said objection
was decided in favour of the appellant herein by the Ld.
Revenue Assistant and Finance Commissioner, while
observing that a lease in favour of grand-father of Sh.
Sardare existed prior to the year 1947 and thus, the suit land
is not affected by section 192 of Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954. After dismissal of the appeal and thereafter revision
petition against such order of Ld Revenue Assistant, a
petition was also filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
which was also dismissed.
26. The respondent/plaintiff, in his pleadings, had
nowhere stated that the suit land was evacuee property. It is
no gainsay that the pleadings in a suit are the most essential
as they define the scope of a case, ensuring both parties are
aware of the claims and defenses, and enabling the court to
focus on relevant issues. For the reasons best known to the
plaintiff/respondent, no utterance was made in the plaint as to
how the Punjab Tenancy Act was applicable to the suit land
despite it being repealed by Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:01:45 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 18 of 22
27. Thus, after the implementation of Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954, the Punjab Tenancy Act stood repealed
and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 were to apply to the lands
in Delhi. It was the case of the defendant no. 2-5, as set out in
their written statement, that Chandgi i.e. father of Sh. Sardare
had made an application before Ld. Revenue Assistant u/s 13
of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for being declared as
bhumidar as he was a non-occupancy tenant in the suit land
prior to the year 1947 and that the said application was
allowed and Chandgi i.e. father of Sardare was declared
bhumidar.
It is also on record that during the pendency of appeal
before Ld. Finance Commissioner, father of Sh. Sardare
expired and Sh. Sardare was impleaded as party in the
proceedings. Sh. Sardare thereafter became bhumidar and
executed a Will which he could have validly done as per
Section 48 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
28. The finding of the Ld. Trial court that Sh. Sardare
was a cultivator and not bhumidar is thus, found to be
erroneous. The Ld. Trial Court erred by failing to observe
that the plaintiff himself had referred to the orders passed by
Ld. Revenue Assistant which conferred Bhumidari Rights
upon Sardare/Chandgi.
The Ld. Trial Court while deciding the issue no.1,
had referred to Ex PW1/2 and observed that the name of
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.24
18:01:51 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 19 of 22
Sardare s/o Chandgi s/o Harphool was mentioned in column
no.5 i.e. Cultivator. However, the Ld. Trial Court erred by
failing to observe that the very document i.e. Ex PW1/2 in
the column of remarks/column no.14 referred to order passed
by Ld. Revenue Assistant in case no. 109/RA/1976 on
24.08.1981, order passed by Ld. ADM in case no.
106/ADM/A-81 dated 31.05.1982 and order passed by Ld.
FC in case number 239/82/CA dated 31.03.1983 vide which
Sardare s/o Chandgi was declared bhumidar u/s 13(1) of
Delhi Land Reforms Act qua the suit land.
Once that is so, the Ld. Trial Court could not have
declared the Will executed by Sardare as null and void as a
bhumidar has right to execute a will by virtue of Section 48
of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
Effect of not setting aside of order dated 08.01.2004 of
Tehsildar
29. The plaintiff/respondent, without assailing the order
dated 24.04.1981 passed by the Learned Revenue Assistant
which was upheld in appeal and subsequently in revision by
the Learned Financial Commissioner sought a declaration
that the act of the Tehsildar in implementing the said order be
declared null and void. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to
invalidate the Will executed by Sh. Sardare. It is admitted
that the plaintiff’s case revolved around the Tehsildar’s entry
in the revenue records, wherein Sh. Sardare was recorded as
the Bhumidar of land bearing Khasra Nos. 52/1, 52/2/3, 52/3,
and 53/5/1 in Village Bhorgarh. NITISH by
Digitally signed
NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:01:57 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 20 of 22
30. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, the
Learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the Tehsildar’s act
could not be declared null and void, as no copy of the order
dated 08.01.2004 was filed by the plaintiff. Moreover, the
Tehsildar’s actions were purely in execution of the orders
passed by the Learned Revenue Assistant, Additional District
Magistrate, and Financial Commissioner. Without those
orders being formally set aside, any challenge was legally
unsustainable.
In any event, as per Section 65 of the Delhi Land
Revenue Act, an order of the Tehsildar is appealable before
the Revenue Assistant, thereby rendering the suit for
declaration before the civil court impermissible.
Accordingly, the Trial Court’s decision to refuse the relief of
declaration against the Tehsildar’s order dated 08.01.2004 is
well-founded.
Notably, if the act of the Tehsildar could not be
annulled, the name of Sh. Sardare would continue to appear
in the revenue records as Bhumidar. Consequently, the Trial
Court’s declaration holding the Will executed by Sh. Sardare
null and void on the alleged ground that it was executed in his
capacity as cultivator-could not have been legally granted.
The finding declaring the Will as invalid is therefore
erroneous and warrants interference.
31. Further, it was argued by the Learned Counsel for the
appellant that the plaintiff/respondent failed to prove
possession over the suit land. It was argued that no credible Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.24
SHARMA 18:02:04 +0530
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 21 of 22
evidence was brought on record to substantiate possession,
thereby disqualifying the relief of injunction against alleged
forcible dispossession, construction, or creation of third-
party interest.
Admittedly, the suit land is agricultural in nature and,
as established, the Will executed by Sh. Sardare is valid.
Defendants No. 2 to 5 have rightfully acquired Bhumidari
rights over their respective portions. Hence, an injunction
against third-party interest cannot be upheld. The revenue
record reflects the name of Sh. Sardare as Bhumidar, and the
land was bequeathed to the defendants through a valid Will.
Therefore, possession remained with defendants No. 2 to 5,
and in the absence of a prayer for title and possession, the
relief of injunction cannot be sustained.
Conclusion:
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment
and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Learned Civil
Judge, Central-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.
156/2004 titled Jai Narain Khatri v. Tehsildar & Ors. is
hereby set aside. The plaintiff’s suit lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
33. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of
this judgment.
34. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
on 24.07.2025. SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24
18:02:12 +0530
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/24.07.2025
RCA No.1/20 Naresh Kumar Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri & Ors Page No. 22 of 22
[ad_2]
Source link