•v^ 49/50/51/52$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1138/2011 & CM No.2436/2011 (for stay) KULDEEP KUMAR Petitioner Thi-ough: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.P. Rana & Mr. Ai'vind Rana, Advocates Versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents Thi-ough: Mi". Shaiiq Mohammad, Advocate with Mf. P.M. Meena, Tehsildar, Nai-ela, DeUii AND + W.P.(C) 1139/2011 & CM No.2437/2011 (for stay) SARJEET KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.P. Rana & Mi". Arvind Rana, Advocates Versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents ^ Tlu'ough: Ml". Shariq Mohammad, Advocate with Ml". P.M. Meena, Tehsildar, Nai'ela, Delhi AND Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified + W.P.(C) 1140/2011 & CM No.2438/2011 (for stay) RENU AGGARWAL Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.P. Rana & Mr. Arvind Rana, Advocates Versus 3' GNCT OF DELHI&ORS Respondents Through: Mi*. Shariq Mohammad, Advocate „ with Mr. P.M. Meena, Tehsildar, Nai-ela, Delhi AND + W.P.(C) 1141/2011 & CM No.2439/2011 (for stay) RAJENDER SINGH AND ANR Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr-. V.P. Rana & Mi". Afvind Rana, Advocates Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS Respondent Through: Mi". Shariq Mohammad, Advocate with Mr-. P.M. Meena, Tehsildar, Narela, Delhi ^ « CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW ORDER % 22.02.2011 1. The petitioners in each of the petitions clann to be in possession of land in Khasra No.257 in village Srraspur, Delhi (stated to be governed. by the provisions of the Delhi Land Refoims Act, 1954) and claim to be using the said land for warehouse puiposes. They claim to have acquired the said land through a series of Power of Attorney / Agreements to Sell executed initially by the allottee of the land from the Gaon Sabha. They have filed these petitions to restrain the defendants fi'om forcibly evicting them fr'om the land in theii*possession. The gravamen of the case of the petitioners is that no action for their eviction having been taken for the last more than three years, they have acquired bhumidari rights with respect to the land and are not liable to be evicted therefrom, even if any eviction orders have been obtained by the respondent Gaon Sabha against their predecessor in interest. 2. The counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice. He states that the said land has always been in the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue records and was never entered in the name of the person through whom the petitioners claim title thereto. He further contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of provisions of Reforms Act vesting bhumidari rights in persons remaining in possession for more than thi'ee yeai's for the reason of petitioners adiTiittedlynot having used the land for agricultui-al puiposes. On enquiiy, the counsel for the -,K V respondents however admits that the petitioners ai'e in possession of the land and states that proceedings for their ejectment shall be taken in accordance with law. 3. I have enquii'ed from the senior-counsel for the petitioners whether it is not incumbent upon the petitioners, even if claim to have acquired bhumidari rights by having been allowed to remain in possession for over three years, to apply to the Revenue Authorities for declaration of the said rights. I am otherwiseof the opinionthat withoutthe rights assertedby the petitioners being adjudicated by the appropriate authorities constituted under the Reforms Act, no blanket order as sought in these petitions can be granted to the petitioners. 4. The senior counselfor the petitionerscontendsthat while it is open to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities for declaration of the rights which they claim to.have acquii'ed,the respondents in any case ai'e not entitled to evict them without due process of law. He contends that the claim of the petitioners of acquir'ingbhumidari rights shall stand adjudicatedin the evictionproceedingsinitiated by the respondents. I V 5. I am of the view that the Reforms Act recognizes only two kinds of title i.e. as a bhumidari & as an asami and does not permit a title as of a person in possession. If the rights of a person in possession have matured into bhumidari rights under the law, such person is required to have a declai'ation with respect thereto made fi'om the Revenue Authorities/ Courts and cannot continue in possession and protect his possession in the manner claimed aforesaid. 6. In the cii-cumstances,whilegi-antmgprotectionto the petitioners,it is deemed expedient to make the same subject to conditions. 7. The writ petitions ai'e accordinglydisposedof with the following duections; A. The petitioners, if desirous of protecting theii" possession, to within four weeks hereof file before the concerned Revenue Court, the proceedings for declarationof thek rights with respect to the land in their possession. B. If the said proceedings are filed, the possession of the petitioners shall be protected till the decision thereof However, if no such proceedings are filed, the petitioners shall not have such protection. -V J C. The respondents shall also be entitled to simultaneously file proceedings for ejectment ofthe petitioners. D. The petitioners till the decision of the said proceedings shall not alienate, encumber or ti'ansfer or pait with the possession of the land/properties in their possession. The senior counsel for the petitioners points out that in W.P.(C) No.1140/2011, the possession . is with the tenant of the petitioner therein. It is clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the said petitioner taking back the possession fi:om the said tenant. The petitioners shall also not raise any const'uction or malte addition, alteration in the propeity. E. The Revenue Assistant concerned is directed to decide the aforesaid claims of the petitioners and the ejectment proceedings, if any, filed by the respondents within one yeai' of today. 'gsr' No order as to costs. Dasti under signature of the Court Master. RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 22,2011