Judgment Case ID: 6114

Judgment:
Civil Appeal No. 351 of 1974. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1973 of the Delhi High Court in R.S.A. No. 69 of 1968. Rajinder Sachar	 Sr. Ad vs and K.C. Dua for the Appellants. N.S. Das Bahal and D.N. 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 16.8.1966. 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 3(13) 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 L.R. 2 was void	 and liable to vacation. In paragraph 4(d) of the plaint	 plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was not 'land ' and was not banjar (waste) and did not come within section 154(1)(i) 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 3(13) 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 4(d) ' 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 .V.K. Appeal dis missed.

Summary:
The appellant plaintiff sued for declaration that inclu sion of the disputed property in the land records of the respondent Gaon Sabha on the basis that it had vested under the provisions of the Delhi Land and Reforms Act	 1954 was wrong	 void and without jurisdiction	 and for a further declaration that she was entitled to bhumidhari rights in the property under section 11 of the Act. In paragraph 4(d) of the plaint	 it was pleaded that the suit land was not 'land ' and was not banjar (waste) and did not come within section 154(1)(i) 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 suit was decreed in the trial court	 and the said decree was affirmed in appeal	 but at the instance of the respondent defendant No. Gaon Sabha	 the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees of the courts below and dismissed the suit. The High Court found that the property came within the definition of 'land ' and	 therefore	 was subjected to the legal incidence of the statutory provisions. In regard to the relief of bhumidhari rights	 it held that the plain tiffs ' suit was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal this Court	 HELD: The definition of 'land ' in section 3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act	 1954 is wide. A land on which fuel wood is grown would 592 constitute groveland. In view of the inclusive definition of 'land '	 the finding of the High Court that the dispute property constituted land cannot be said to be wrong. [594C D] Nemi Chand vs Financial Commissioner	 Punjab & Anr.	 ; Rajinder Prashad & Anr. vs The Punjab State & Ors.	 AIR 1966 (53) Punjab 185; Munshi Ram & Ors. vs Financial Commissioner	 Haryana & Ors. 	 ; ; Haiti vs Sunder Singh	 ; referred to. It is impermissible to rely on definitions containing meanings different from the definition under the Delhi Land Reforms Act	 1954 for a proper resolution of the dispute. [595A] The High Court therefore came to the correct conclu sion when it held that the disputed property Constituted 'land ' under the Act	 and became liable to vest in the Gaon Sabha under the Act. [595B]