2013 (10) TMI 1529 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenged judgment on possession charges under Delhi Land Reforms Act

RAJESH KUMAR Versus SHANTA VASHISHT

The appeal challenged a judgment and decree for possession, use, and occupation charges issued by the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 Delhi. The ... - Issues involved: Appeal against judgment and decree for possession, use, and occupation charges u/s 1087/2008, applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, jurisdiction of Civil Court.Judgment Details:1. The appeal challenged a judgment and decree for possession, use, and occupation charges issued by the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 Delhi. The appellant was required to deposit the decretal amount towards mesne profits and maintain status quo pending appeal.2. The appellant argued that the suit for possession was related to agricultural land governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and thus not maintainable before the Civil Court. The appeal process faced delays due to default appearances and restoration applications.3. The respondent's counsel highlighted that the suit was for recovery of possession of agricultural land, subject to the Reforms Act, and that bhumidari rights declaration falls under the Revenue Assistant's jurisdiction.4. The appellant's counsel contended that the property was part of an unauthorized colony over agricultural land, suggesting the Reforms Act may not apply. Precedents were cited to support the argument against readily inferring exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction.5. The respondent claimed possession of agricultural land and demolition of unauthorized construction in the plaint. However, the Trial Court failed to frame an issue on the jurisdictional aspect, prompting further inquiry.6. An additional issue was framed to determine whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction for possession relief was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for evidence collection and decision within six months.7. Liberty was granted to the respondent to amend the plaint limited to the jurisdictional aspect, with specific timelines for filing and response. The parties were directed to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 on a specified date for further proceedings.8. The appellant was instructed to continue depositing the required amount pending the Trial Court's findings. The appeal was to be listed post receipt of the Trial Court's findings with reasons.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment's key points and the legal issues involved in the case.