18 May 2020


High Court of Delhi

Hyacinth Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gaon Sabha Raghopur




An appeal shall lie only from the final order passed by a Court

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition whereby the learned Financial Commissioner has dismissed the Revision Petition upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector. The only issue, which arises for consideration is, whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in holding the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 185 (3) of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is not maintainable as the order dated May 27, 2015 was a conditional order and not a final order, which is only appealable.

As per impugned order dated May 27, 2015, it is clear that the RA/SDM, on a finding that the land is being used for non-agricultural purpose by the Petitioner and thereby contravened Section 81 of the DLR Act, had called upon the Petitioner to convert the said land into agricultural use/purpose within three months. Section 81 of the DLR Act, relates to (i) a suit filed by Gaon Sabha or a land owner for ejectment of a bhumidhar or an asami if the land is being used for non agricultural purpose and for damages equivalent to the cost of works, which may be required to render the land capable of use for agricultural purpose; (ii) the action of the Revenue Assistant for ejectment and damages on information received or on his own motion.

The proceedings under Section 81 of Act, are for both ejectment and damages. The Revenue Assistant/SDM has not passed an order for damages. He by passing a conditional order, has given time to the Petitioner to convert the land back to agricultural use without determining the damages. It is on failure on the part of the Petitioner to put the land in agricultural use, an order of damages is passed, which is a final order, which can be challenged by a party under Section 185(3) read with Entry 17 in Schedule I. Section 185 (3) of the DLR Act, stipulates that an appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a Court mentioned in Column 3 to the Court or authority mentioned in column 8. Column 3 of Entry 17 of Schedule I of the DLR Act contemplates the description of suit application and other proceedings to mean (i) a suit for ejectment of bhumidhar or asami and for damages under sub section (1); (ii) proceedings under sub section (2). It necessarily means that, order must relate to both ejectment and damages (cost).

Rule 24 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, stipulates that, unless an order is expressly made final by the Revenue law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the Court authorized under paragraph 23 to hear the same from every original order passed in any proceedings held under the provisions of the Act." It is the final order from which an appeal shall lie to the Court authorized under paragraph 23, in this case the Deputy Commissioner.

Similarly, under Section 81(2), the Revenue Assistant on receiving information or on his own motion, eject the bhumidhar and also recover damages. The suit under Section 81 of Act, is not exclusively for ejectment. The appeal filed by Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable under Section 185(3) of the DLR Act. There is no infirmity in the orders of Financial Commissioner and also the learned Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is dismissed.

Tags : Proceedings Appeal Maintainability

Share :