LexSHRI KANWAR PAL AND ORS. versus GAON SABHA KIRARI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRI KANWAR PAL AND ORS. v. GAON SABHA KIRARI AND ORS. AUGUST 6, 1996 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.! Delhi Land Refonns Act, 1954 : S.81-Unauthoiised. conve1'ion of agricultural land into non-agricul- tural use--One of the co-share1' conve1ting agricultural land in his possession into 11011-agriculntral use-Notice issued to the co-shm~r individually-Land not converted to agricultural use-Meanwhile noticee died-Action of vesting A B c the entire land in Gaon Sabha taken-Other co-sharers' pleas that they were individually in possessioli of their respective shares, no notice was given to them, and they were not aware of the proceedings rejected by the revenue authorities as also by High Court on the ground that notice to one Co-sharer D is notice to all co-sharers-Held, the 11roposition that notice served on a co- sharer would be notice on other co-sharers would not be applicable instantly when the case of other co-sharers is that they were in individual possession of /an~A notice was essential to be issued to all the share holders before- any action was sought to be taken under s.81-0rders of revenue authorities E and of the High Court are set aside-It would be open to revenue authorities to take de nova proceedings against each and eve1y co-sharer separately in possession, if cause for procedure exists. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11469 of ~ F From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.89 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 603 of 1989. V.C. Mahajan and Rishi Kesh for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G The Gaon Sabha, Kirari Suleman Nagar, a village situated within the State of Delhi, moved the Revenue Assistant/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, complaining conversion of some lands to non- agricultural use in contravention of the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms H 311 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP.'4 S.C.R. A Act, 1954. The respondent arrayed therein was one Narender Singh. It seems that the said respondent was directed vide order dated 10.10.1985 to convert the said lands back to agricultural use within three months, failing which he would be ejected from the said land and his rights thus on the land would get extinguished vesting the same in the Gaon Sabha. It was B c D E F reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the Patwari through the 'rehsildar that the suit land had not been converted lo agricultural use by the respondent despite notice. This led to the action of vesting of the land in the Gaon Sabha. The appellants herein claimed to be in individual possession of the land involved in such vesting. They moved the Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration in revision, not only on the merit of the matter, but otherwise complaining that the Revenue Assistant had passed orders dated 10.10.1985 in the first instance and then finally on August 20, 1986 \vithout giving them an opportunity of being heard. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19.1.1989 rejected the revision petition holding that notice to one co-sharer was notice to all, leaving alone the matter on its merit. It transpired that Narender Singh to whom the notice had been issued had died in that interregnum. It was concluded by the Financial Commissioner ~hat the assertion of the appellants that they could not know of the proceedings was not believable since those had continued since 1984 to 1985 and the assertion that the deceased did not tell them about the pend ency of. proceedings was unconvincing. The High Court when ap- proached in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, agreed with the Financial Commissioner in holding that notice on a co- sharer was good service on the other co-sharers. This order of the High Court is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. As an abstract proposition, it cannot be disputed that a co-sharer is in possession of land not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the other co-sharers too and a notice served on him would be notice on other co-sharers. It seems to us that the said proposition would not be applicable G instantly when the case of the appellants is that they were in individual possession of lands as reflective from the Khataunis of the relevant year. As is evident, drastic are the consequences if agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use. One co-sharer cannot be permitted to hold the other co-shares to ra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.