AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 10th July, 2015, passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”). There is a further prayer for restraining the respondent no. 1, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) from taking possession of the agricultural land and compound in Leprosy Complex/Tahirpur Complex, Delhi.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the document filed by the petitioner with regard to the Jamabandi of village Jhilmil, Tahirpur Tehsil and District, Delhi. By referring to the aforesaid revenue record, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner, as a tenant. It is submitted that the petitioner has been cultivating crops, and are in settled possession of the land in question. Thus, it is submitted that the MCD be restrained from taking possession of the agricultural land and compound in the land in question, without due process of law.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relies upon a Comprehensive Policy on Tahirpur Complex, issued by the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, to submit that a decision had been taken by the GNCTD to allow the healthy descendants of Leprosy affected patients to stay in the land in question for one generation, and they were also held to be eligible for relocation as per the existing Rehabilitation Policy of GNCTD.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-MCD submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in the present proceedings. He further submits that the land in question is a government land and does not belong to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has wrongly claimed ownership of the land in question and draws the attention of this Court to the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. He further submits that the Comprehensive Policy, as relied upon by the petitioners for their rehabilitation, was only a tentative policy, which has never been finalized or implemented.
In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an alternate place for rehabilitation be granted to the petitioner society, since they have been in possession of the land in question for a long time.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that as per the document on record, the MCD has been running a Leprosy Home at Tahirpur, Shahdara, and providing basic medical facilities and dry ration, etc. to the inmates therein. Further, the document shows that the MCD has handed over possession of the vacant land in question measuring 30 acres, together with the entire complex, spread over 14 acres consisting of the building of Leprosy Home/Hospital/Staff quarters at Village Tahirpur to the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD. Further, decision was also taken to transfer the whole Leprosy Home Complex, Tahirpur, Shahdara, to the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, to carry out all medical, social and rehabilitation activities under one administrative control. The document pertaining to the same, is reproduced as under:
This Court notes that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3060/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 18th February, 2015, in the following manner:
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a speaking order dated 10th July, 2015, has been passed by the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, which reads as under:
Sub.: In the matter of Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation heard in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) 3060/2013 and CM No.5795/2013.
This is the matter of Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation which was being heard in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) 3060/2013 and CM No. 5795/2013. Hon'ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru was pleased to pass an order in this matter on dated 8.2.2015 in which while considering the claim of the petitioner, directed that the present petition be considered as a representation by respondent no.2. He further directed that the Dy.Director, Social Welfare Department shall consider this representation and pass speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from today and if necessary he may call upon the concerned officer of EDMC and DDA to assist him in arriving at an informed decision.
The said order was made available to this office by the Superintendent, RCL, Tahirpur on 22nd May, 2015 after downloading the same from the internet. Certified copy of the order was not given to this office. Subsequently, in order to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, efforts were made to clarify the issues with regard to the contention of the petitioner society i.e. Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha.
The claim of the petitioner is that the said society consisting of various families whose members are suffering from leprosy were allotted an area of approximately 16 acres along with a pond in the year 1957 and that they were in settled possession of this land but the Petitioner Society has failed to produce any documentary evidence.
In order to clarify the issue, documents / maps / record of minutes of meeting etc. were sought from the Deputy Director (Estate) Department of Social Welfare as well as the Administrator, Tahirpur / District Social Welfare Officer(North East). Copy of two small maps, one of PWD indicating the location of various land sites in Tahirpur Complex and one site map signed by Kanoongo, patwari of DC office and patwari of DDA were made available by Estate Branch of Social Welfare Department, which were reportedly obtained from the O/o Administrator, Tahirpur/DSWO (NE) (Copy of maps enclosed at Annex-1). The report of the Committee of the Officers headed by the Deputy Commissioner, North East 2010 and minutes of meeting held by the SDM Seema Puri dated 25/08/2011 were referred (copies enclosed as Annex-2 & 3).
In the aforesaid report of the Committee of the Officers headed by the Deputy Commissioner, North East 2010, it is mentioned that Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha is under MCD control and consist of 16.5 acres of agricultural land at page-6. Further the report also mentions that no society or panchayat has been allotted land by any Government Agency or DDA within Tahirpur Complex at page-11. The Report further mentions that in a meeting held with the stake holders on 09/07/2010, the Committee asked about the allotment of land to their societies by the DDA or any other government agency but none of the society representatives could produce any document/evidence regarding allotment of land to them and the same was also confirmed during the survey of houses conducted by the office of the DC (NE) (see page 22 of the report).
It is also observed that in the list of societies given in the said report at page12 and page-13 mentioning legal and illegal occupancy does not mention the name of Gandhi Kushth Krishi Sanstha. Legal occupancy of 194 tenements only is mentioned which are found against the following societies namely Ekta Vihar, Ganga Jamuna, Hariom Kusth Ashram, Jai Hind Kusth Ashram, Manav Seva Samiti, Vikas-B, Saraswati Kusth Ashram, Sarvodaya-B Kushth Ashram, Sewa Samiti-B and Shanti Kushth Ashram.
The minutes of the meeting dated 25th August, 2011 convened by SDM, Seemapuri to decide on the title / ownership of land in Tahirpur complex, MCD officers informed that as per their records, MCD has possession of 27.99 acres of land out of which 16.47 acres of land is designated as agricultural/pond.
A meeting was also called to arrive at an informed decision on this issue, chaired by the Director, Social Welfare on 07th July, 2015. The meeting was attended by the representative from DDA, MCD, Estate Branch of Social Welfare Department and Social Defence Branch as well as Administrator, Tahirpur Complex / DSWO (NE). In this meeting, the Administrator Tahirpur Complex showed a map of PWD indicating the area of various sites in Tahirpur Complex which also showed the area of around 16 acres as belonging to MCD. The representative from MCD stated that the area in question i.e. agricultural land and pond of around 16 acres in Tahirpur Complex is of MCD. However, he stated that the relevant records would be available at the MCD Hospital, in Tahirpur Complex.
Accordingly, a visit was made on the same day at 04.00 pm to the site of the agricultural land and pond. The representatives of the petitioner society namely Sh. Bhandari and others were present at the site. No papers or documents were made available by the representatives of the Petitioner Society, though Sh. R.B. Bhandari of the said society claimed that their families were living and cultivating in this area even before the MCD came here.
Dr. Ramesh Kumar, In-charge of MCD Hospital in Tahirpur Complex as well as Sh. Nazrul Islam, Executive Engineer M-1 Shahdara North EDMC were present. Administrator, Tahirpur Complex / DSWO (NE) was also present. Dr. Ramesh Kumar stated that this portion of land measuring around 16 acres was allowed to be used by around 50 leprosy affected persons for their rehabilitation. The land consists of agricultural land and pond where in cultivation and fishing is being done. The leprosy affected persons were provided one room tenements in the MCD barracks to stay. The Doctor further informed that earlier in-house treatment of leprosy effected patient was the norm and hence such persons were staying in the barracks but now as per present recommendations of WHO, OPD treatment is given to leprosy affected persons. However, those who were allotted accommodation in the Barracks previously continued to stay along with their families. At present, 21 persons who are leprosy affected are staying in the barracks and provided with dry ration, vegetables, milk, winter/summer clothing, utensils etc. and are also provided medical services. It is the families of these persons who are now claiming possession of the said 16 acres of agricultural land and pond.
Dr. Kumar also provided the list of 21 inmates of the leprosy home, Tahirpur i.e. those persons living in MCD barracks in Tahirpur (Copy enclosed as annexure -4). The area of the barracks is also under the control of MCD, which undertakes repair and maintenance work.
Certain papers were also made available by the MCD which indicate the area under the control of MCD. Copy enclosed as Annexure-5(Colly). Details are as under:-
1.Joint Survey Report of Village Jhilmil, Tahirpur dated 23.1.2007 which indicates agricultural land and pond of 16.479 acres in MCD possession, copy attested by Sh. Ramphal, Survey Officer, Land Estate, EDMC.
2.Site map of leprosy colony, village Tahirpur indicating agricultural land and pond of 16.479 acres in MCD possession copy attested by Sh. Ramphal, Survey Officer, Land Estate, EDMC.
By perusing the aforesaid order, it clearly comes to the fore that 21 Leprosy affected persons are staying in the barracks of the MCD Hospital in Tahirpur Complex. The said persons are provided with dry ration, vegetables and other facilities, including, medical services. The said area of the barracks is under the control of the MCD. A joint survey was conducted, on the basis of which it was indicated that the land in question, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is in the possession of the MCD. Thus, the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, has come to a categorical conclusion and finding that the area in question, measuring 16 acres, consisting of agricultural land and pond, belongs to the MCD.
This Court further takes note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, i.e., Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD, wherein, it is stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
Thus, it is manifest that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentation certifying ownership of the land in question, as claimed by them.
Further, the respondent no. 3-Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) in its Status Report dated 11th July, 2017, has stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
Thus, it is evident that as per the revenue record, the land in question is meant for Leprosy Home/Colony, and is not a private land or vested with the petitioner.
This Court also takes note of the submission made on behalf of the respondents, raising objection to the veracity of the revenue record filed by the petitioner. In this regard, submissions made on behalf of MCD, in its counter affidavit, are reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
Thus, the petitioner cannot seek to establish any disputed questions of facts as regards ownership over the land in question, when it is the categorical stand of the government authorities that the land in question belongs to the government. No right can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of certain revenue entries, when the same have been disputed.
While holding that the presumption of correctness of government records is only applicable to genuine documents, and not forged or fraudulent entries, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati Versus Fakhrul Hassan and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 642, held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
14.It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.
15.In Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan [AIR 1965 SC 54 : (1964) 7 SCR 800] , it was held by this Court that Section 20 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1951 does not require proof of actual possession and that its purpose is to eliminate inquiries into disputed possession by acceptance of the entries in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 Fasli. While commenting on this decision, this Court observed in Sonawati v. Sri Ram [AIR 1968 SC 466 : (1968) 1 SCR 617, 620] that
“the civil court in adjudging a claim of a person to the rights of an adhivasi is not called upon to make an enquiry whether the claimant was actually in possession of the land or held the right as an occupant: cases of fraud apart, the entry in the record alone is relevant.” We have supplied the emphasis in order to show that the normal presumption of correctness attaching to entries in the revenue record, which by law constitute evidence of a legal title, is displaced by proof of fraud. xxx xxx xxx” (emphasis supplied)
Further, there is no document on record to show any transfer of the land in question in favour of the petitioner.
While holding that revenue records are not documents of title, the Supreme Court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar Versus Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483, held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
12.It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title.
13.This Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur2 held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
14.This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs3 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
15.In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh4, this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows:
“6.***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.”
16.We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs.5 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. xxx xxx xxx” (emphasis supplied)
This Court also notes the contradictory submissions made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner claims possessory/ownership rights over the land in question. On the other hand, the petitioner claims alternate rehabilitation. Clearly, the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the land in question.
Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, no merit is found in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, along with the pending application.