WPC No.5970/2007 Page 1 3. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5970/2007 SURAJ BHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 23.02.2010 1. The petitioners have initiated proceedings under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) claiming bhumidari rights in respect of khasra Nos. 13/5 (4-5), 13/6 (4-5), 13/15 (4-5) and 13/16 (3-10) in village Singhu, Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioners that this land was allotted to them in the year 1951-52 in the consolidation proceedings and he has relied upon oral partition with other co-sharers. The petitioners also rely upon khatoni pamaish for the year 1951-52. It is alleged that the land was subsequently vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 7 of the Act as barren land. However, the petitioners allege that they have been in cultivatory possession of the land and the petitioners are growing crops. It is alleged that the respondents were not recording cultivatory possession of the petitioners though the petitioners had moved applications on 26th September, 2000, 11th September, 2005 and 4th August, 2007. The respondents have not specifically controverted the said averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and have not denied receipt of the said letters/applications moved by the petitioners. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the records this land was barren (banjar) and by a letter dated 26th December, 2006 the land was handed over to PWD. It is also alleged that in case the land was under cultivation, the patwari should have made entry in column No. 7. No entry was made WPC No.5970/2007 Page 2 in column No. 7 and it was left blank. At the same time, it is averred that the petitioners have not exhausted remedy available to them under the Act and have claimed possession of the land. Accordingly, it is stated that no rights have accrued in favour of the petitioners. 3. To verify and decide whether the land in question was in actual possession of the petitioners, a Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report along with photographs. The photographs show that the petitioners were growing crops and were in cultivatory possession of the said land on the date when the Local Commissioner had visited the spot. It is, however, noticed that there was no boring and it was the stand of the petitioners that the fields were watered with the help of a hose pipe connected with a tractor-trolley with water. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is directed that the petitioners will not be dispossessed till the matter is examined by the Revenue Assistant in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 85 of the Act. The Revenue Assistant will independently apply his mind and decide whether or not the petitioners have been able to establish possession or the petitioners had merely cultivated the said land to enable them to approach this Court. The proceedings before the Revenue Assistant will be decided and disposed of expeditiously. It is open to the respondents to produce relevant evidence and material before the Revenue Assistant. It is also open to the respondents to file an application, if required, under Section 86A of the Act. 5. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative and prima facie and will not influence and will not be binding on the Revenue Assistant, who will independently apply his mind. The Revenue Assistant will be entitled to modify the order passed above while deciding any interim application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010 VKR