The Honourable Supreme Court of India gave a historic judgement paving the way for protection of the commons across the country on 28th January 2011. This came in connection to the hearing on the Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 @SLP(C) No. 3109/2011. This blog is aimed to collate all possible information related to the judgement. For views and comments write to firstname.lastname@example.org
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
In Other Courts: Ajay Kalsi v/s Gaon Sabha Rangpuri...30th May 2012
Appeal No. 58/07
Kalsi v/s Gaon Sabha Rangpuri
THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
SOUTH WEST, NEW DELHI
Kalsi … Appellant
Sabha Rangpuri … Respondent
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hasprohibited
the field staff from demarcation .
the competence of
the field inquiry itis
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.
the claims of the appellant as per the order of the Hon.
Supreme Court inJagpal
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 needsto
be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha.
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.
the open court
under my hand and seal of this court on this 30th
day of May, 2012.