GAON SABHA AND ANR. versus NATHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 354 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GAON SABHA AND ANR. 
I'. 
• 
NA THI AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 2004 
B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; Sections 3, 4, 5, 7(2), l /, 15, 154(/) & 
I 85-Dispute regarding right to receive compensation for land acquired-
c Held, on facts and law, the acquired land does not come within section 8 of 
the Delhi Land Reforms Act-Acquired land vested with appellants under the 
Act and hence entitled to receive compensation-Land Acquisition Act, 1894; 
Sections 4(1), 6, 9 & 30. 
Land was acquired by issuing notifications under sections 4(1) and 
D 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Collector made an award but due to 
a dispute between appellant and private respondents regarding the right 
to receive compensation, seven references were made to Land Acquisition 
Court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute. The Court held 
that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation amount. High Court 
allowed the appeal of the respondents. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the land was 
vested with them and they are entitled to receive the entire amount of 
compensation. 
,J 
The respondents contended that the land was recorded as Gair 
F Mumkin Pahar and consequently it could not vest with the appellants; that 
the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under section 7(2) of the 
{' 
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is illegal and without authority of law; that 
the issue of ownership had already been decided in a civil suit and that 
since the matter has attained finality, the same would operate as res 
G judicata between them; that no notification under section 7(2) of the Act 
could be issued as the disputed land was not a waste land. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. A person can be either a Bhumidhar or an Asami of the 
/"'"· 
H 
354 
I 
i,.., 
GAON SABHA v. NATI-II 
355 
agricultural land in a village. He can also be an owner of the property of A 
the type which is enumerated in Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 
1954 like private wells, tanks, groves, abadis, trees and buildings. Except 
for these, all other kinds of lands and property would vest in the Goan 
Sabha. The proprietors and the concept of proprietors of land stands 
totally abolished with the enforcement of the Act. The respondents neither B 
claimed to be Bhumidhar nor an Asami of the la1•d which has been 
acquired. The acquired land does not come within the purview of Section 
8 of the Act. In such circumstances, the only inference possible is that the 
land stood vested with the Goan Sabha on the date of the commencement 
of the Act and it was the Gaon Sabha which was the owner thereof and 
was entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. 1356-B-DI 
C 
Nathu v. Hukam Singh, AIR (1983) Delhi 216, referred to. 
2. The High Court, in Second Appeal in earlier round, held that the 
civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit wherein a declaration 
was sought that the order passed under section 7(2) of the Delhi Land D 
Reforms Act, 1954 vesting the land in the appellant is illegal. The High 
Court, though held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit, 
remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision. 
The Deputy Commissioner however could not carry out the exercise as 
meanwhile the land had been acquired. The rights of the individual persons 
having not been finally determined as directed by the High Court, no E 
question of res judicata would arise. 1366-E-Gl 
3. The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was 
filed seeking a declaration that the order of vesting of land in Ga on Sabha 
is illegal. The decree passed in the aforesaid suit including that of the High 
Court is wholly without jurisdiction. A decree passed by a court without F 
jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever 
and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage 
of execution and even in collateral proceedings and further a defect of 
jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect 
of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the G 
Court to pass a:iy decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by 
consent of the parties. Therefore, the finding that the order passed under 
section 7(2) of the Act vesting the property in the Gaon Sabha is illegal, 
recorded in the civil suit and affirmed by the High Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.