Civil Appeal No 351 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 2321973 of the Delhi High Court in RSA No 69 of 1968
Rajinder Sachar Sr
Ad vs and KC Dua for the Appellants
NS Das Bahal and DN Puri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
This appeal is by special leave and the sole legal representative of the original plaintiff is in appeal
The plaintiff sued for declaration that inclusion of the disputed property in the land records of the respondent Gaon Sabha on the basis that it had vested under the provi sions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act  was wrong void and without juris diction and for a further declaration that she was entitled to bhumidhari rights in the property under section 11 of the Act
Her suit was decreed in the trial court and the said decree was affirmed in appeal but at the instance of defend ant No 1 Gaon Sabha the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees of the courts below and dismissed the suit
593 The suit was instituted on 1681966
The decision of this Court in the case of Hatti vs Sunder Singh  settled the legal position that a claim under sec tion 11 of the Act for declaration of bhumidhari right was not maintainable in the Civil Court in view of section 185 of the Act read with Schedule I and exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication of such claims vested in the appropriate Revenue Court
This position of law is not disputed before us
In regard to the relief of bhumidhari rights the High Court had therefore rightly held that the plaintiff s suit was not maintainable
The only other submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiff for our consideration is that the disputed proper ty did not constitute land  as defined in section 313 of the Act and therefore the right title and interest of the appellant as proprietor of the property was in no way af fected by the provisions of the Act and the inclusion of the property in LR 2 was void and liable to vacation
In paragraph 4d of the plaint plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was not land  and was not banjar waste and did not come within section 1541i to vii of the Act and therefore there was no vesting in law
The proprietor according to the plaintiff grew fuel wood and partly used the property as ghatwars and used the stones for building purposes
The High Court has found that the property came within the definition of land  and therefore was subjected to the legal incidence of the statutory provisions
Section 313 defines land to mean land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes a buildings appurtenant therto b village abadis c grovelands d lands for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation   The definition of land in the Act is wide and in paragraph 4d  594 the admitted position is fuel wood was being grown on the property Horticulture  garden  and groveland  in the absence of statutory definitions would have the common parlance meaning Horticulture  as the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates means the cultivation of a garden Garden  according to the Dictionary means an area of land usually planted with grass trees flower beds etc an area of land used for the cultivation of ornamental plants herbs fruit vegetables trees etc
A grove as the Dictionary puts it means A small wood
 small woodland area or plantation
A land on which fuel wood is grown would constitute groveland
In view of the inclusive definition of land  the finding of the High Court that the disputed property consti tuted land cannot be said to be wrong
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Punjab High Court in Nemi Chand vs Financial Commissioner Punjab  Anr where the meaning of land in Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act was under examination and the Court was called upon to decide whether banjar Jadid and banjar quadim came within the definition
For that purpose the meaning of land occurring in the Tenures Act and the Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887 was examined
The Court also referred to the definition of land in Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900
In the presence of a definition in the Act under consideration we find no justification to refer to definitions in different statutes for finding out whether the disputed property was land
Appellant s counsel also placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of the same High Court in the case of Ra jinder Prasad  Anr
vs The Punjab State  Ors AIR 1966 53 Punjab 185
Here again the question for consideration was whether gair mumkin land was land within the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act
For the reason indicated above we do not think that the appellant is entitled to any support from the Full Bench Judgment
Lastly reliance was placed on he decision of this Court in Munshi Ram  Ors
vs Financial Commissioner Haryana  Ors
  The Court was considering the true meaning of permissible area  under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and for that purpose the meaning of land was being examined whether banjar Jadid should be excluded with reference to 595 the meaning of land under the East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act and the Punjab Tenancy Act was being debated before the Court
We do not think in view of the statutory definition any digration is necessary
It is impermissible to rely on definitions containing meanings different from the definition under the Act for a proper resolution of the dispute
The High Court in our opinion came to the correct conclusion when it held that the disput ed property constituted land under the Act and became liable to vest in the Gaon Sabha under the Act
The judgment of the High Court therefore is upheld and the appeal is dis missed
In the peculiar facts of this case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this Court
N VK
Appeal dis missed


Summary:
By the present petition the Petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Respondent against him under Section 31 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985
The detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati Central Jail on 5101988
The detenu immediately thereafter made represen tation to the detaining authority as well as to the State Government as also to the Advisory Board against the deten tion order but he having not received any reply he filed this Writ Petition
The grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu inter alia mentioned that by reason of various crimi nal acts committed by him with the help of his companions which included looting of persons causing injuries by lethal weapons he had become a terror in the area and as such a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2c of the said Act
Grounds also enumerated seven criminal cases which had been registered against the detenu
The detenu was stated to have committed offences affecting haman body by holding deadly weapons such as razor knife Tamancha Sword Hockey stick etc
It was specifically mentioned that if the passers by refused to pay to the detenu the money as demanded by him he used to threaten them of murder by showing weapons
It was also stated in the grounds that particulars of detenu s anti social activities were given by four persons of the area who did not desire that their names he disclosed which were accordingly not disclosed claiming privilege in that behalf
Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts the detaining authority felt satisfied that the detenu has been committing offences punishable under IPC and that due to those activities of the detenu public order was disturbed he having become a hurdle in the main 570 tenance of public order
This is how the detention order referred to above came to be passed
The Petitioner challenged the detention order principal ly on two grounds viz
i that the grounds of detention are not germane and relevant as they are vague lacking in material particulars and ii that there has been complete non application of mind by the detaining authority in making the order of detention
The Court immediately after conclusion of the hearing of the Writ Petition pronounced an order on May 5 1988 allow ing the Writ Petition and stating that the written judgment shall follow later
These are the reasons given by the Court in support of the said order whereby the Court HELD The averments made in the grounds of detention are absolutely vague inasmuch as no particulars as to which persons have been robbed or what offences have been commit ted by showing deadly weapons and at what place have not been mentioned
577B There is also no mention when and where the detenu in a drunken condition demanded money from whom nor it has been stated when the detenu threatened whom to murder by showing razor or Rampuri knife
There is no particular instance also as to which peace loving citizens and in which area the Petitioner has beaten in public believing that they are giving information of his criminal activities to the police
It is also a vague statement that the detenu is coming in the way of maintenance of public order
575G 576D G The grounds and averments made in the grounds which were served on the detenu are vague and as such they are viola tive of Article 225 of the Constitution of India
576H 577A Pushkar Mukharjee  Ors
vs The State of West Bengal969 2 SCR 635 at page 641 and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City  Anr JT at page 710
An act may create a law and order  problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the mainte nance of public order
579A Dr Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar  Ors  at page 746
571 The criminal cases in the instant case are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a law and order  problem and it has nothing to do with maintenance of public order
Its reach and effect is not so deep as to affect the public at large
It does not create or tend to create any panic in the mini of the people of a particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order
There is nothing to show that the activities of the Petitioner have affected or tended to affect the even tempo of life of the community
571G 572A It has been stated by the detaining authority that on relevant inquiry it found the statements to he true and as such the names and addresses of those witnesses have not been given to the detenu as provided in Section 92 of the PASA Act 1985
The Court did not enter into that controver sy as in its opinion the detaining authority was satisfied not to disclose then names of those witnesses
581G 582A Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration  not applicable distinguished