Wednesday, December 5, 2012

In Other Courts: Ajay Kalsi v/s Gaon Sabha Rangpuri...30th May 2012

                                                                                                      Appeal No. 58/07
                                                                        Ajay Kalsi v/s Gaon Sabha Rangpuri


Ajay Kalsi … Appellant
Gaon Sabha Rangpuri … Respondent


This shall dispose of the appeal dated 20/07/2007 filed by the appellant herein above u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) dated 05/03/2007 issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954 in Case No. 213/RA/99. Vide the said order the SDM/RA has ordered for eviction of the respondent (appellant hereinabove) from the suit land bearing Khasra No. 771, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 794/1, 794/2 & 794/3 of village Rangpuri. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court.

The case of the appellant is that on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner submitted in the Civil Suit filed by the Appellant and others No. 2103/1996 titled Ajay Kalsi & Ors v/s Gaon Sabha Rangpuri & Ors, the BDO (Najafgarh) has filed application before RA/SDM (Vasant Vihar) with the request to proceed under Section 86A of DLR Act against the present Appellant herein. A report by Local Commissioner was submitted in the said suit. The Revenue Assistant passed an order under Section 86A of DLR Act arbitrarily and without adopting the procedure laid down under the provisions to Delhi Land Reform Rules and passed the impugned order against the principle of natural justice. Revenue Assistant was wrong in not appreciating that the report of Local Commissioner in civil proceedings is not a convulsive proof to determine the alleged encroachment and moreover the said report of LC is only hearsay evidence which could not have been taken into consideration.

It is stated that the Ld. trial court has not discussed various legal objections taken by the appellant and did not conduct any inquiry in the matter and simply gone on the report furnished by Patwari. Mere mentioning that the alleged Khasra no. are within the boundary wall does not constitute a demarcation report and in any case under land Revenue Rules only a field Kanungo is competent to demarcate and submit its report. Hence no reliance could have been placed on such report of Patwari. Further, it has been claimed that there is a stay from the Hon. High Court vide its order dated 02/09/96 regarding demarcation, demolition and taking possession of the suit land.

The case of the respondent is that he has reported the matter to the RA clearly stating the encroachment of the Gram Sabha land by the respondent. It is stated that report of the respondent is independent and based on the factual position of the spot. The report clearly speaks of the extent of encroachment. It has been contended that the appellant has encroached upon the Gram Sabha land and now involved in delaying tactics thorough unnecessary arguments to keep hold on the Gram Sabha land.

Upon hearing the parties and going through the material on record it is observed that in the entire appeal the appellant has laid stress on only the legal issues like which official is empowered to do what without stressing upon the merits of the case. In fact the respondent has also tried to misguide this court by quoting the order of the Hon. High Court dated 02/09/96 regarding stay on demarcation, possession and demolition in respect of the suit land. Here it is noticed that there has never been any stay on demarcation vide the said order but the appellant has prohibited the field staff from demarcation . Further, regarding the competence of carrying out the field inquiry it is observed that the RA/SDM has to get the field inquiry done through the field staff only. It is observed that the appellant has only attempted to delay the justice in the said case. Also nothing is produced before this court regarding any stay as on date. Lastly, the attempts of the appellant for obstructing the demarcation of the land and held the inquiry conducted by the Ld. RA/SDM as illegal shows the delaying tactics on his part and the arguments and appeal of the appellant is devoid of merits.

However, notwithstanding the claims of the appellant as per the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132 /2011 and SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha. Hence , the order:


In view of the observations made in the judgement I am of the opinion that the appeal of the appellant herein above filed u/s 185 DLR Act, 1954 against the order of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) dated 05/03/2007 issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954 in Case No. 213/RA/99 is devoid of merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed and the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) and BDO (South West) are directed to take further necessary action in time bound manner.

Pronounced in the open court

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 30th day of May, 2012.

                                                                                                Vikas Anand, IAS
                                                                                 Dy. Commissioner & Collector

Copy to:
  1. SDM, Najafgarh
  1. BDO. South West

No comments:

Post a Comment