SMT. KASTURI (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus GAON SABHA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 27-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
f 
I 
SMT. KASTURI (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
A 
v. 
GAON SABHA 
\ 
JULY 27, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: Section 3( 13), I I, 154, 185-
, Land'-When vest in Gaon Sabha-Civil Suit-Declaration of 
bhumidhari right-Whether maintainable. 
Statutory Interpretation: External aid-Word defined in another 
statute containing different meaning-Not to be relied upon. 
c 
"" 
Words & Phrases: 'Land'-'Garden'-'Grove'-Meaning of. 
The appellant-plaintiff sued for declaration that inclusion of the 
disputed property in the land records of the respondent-Gaon Sabha on 'D 
the basis that it had vested under the provisions of the Delhi Land 
Reforms Act, 1954 was wrong, void and without jurisdiction, and for a 
further declaration that she was entitied to bhumidhari rights in the 
property under section 11 of the Act. In paragraph 4(d) of tbe plaint, it 
was pleaded that the suit land was not 'land' and was not banjar (waste) 
.J. 
and did not come within section 154(1)(i) to (vii) of the Act and, there-
E 
fore, there was no vesting in law. The proprietor, according to the 
plaintiff, grew fuel wood and partly used the property as ghatwars and 
used the stones for building purposes. 
' 
I~ 
The suit was decreed in the trial court, and the 5'iid decree was 
affirmed in appeal, but at the instance of the respondent-defendant No. 
F 
1-Gaon Sabha, the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees 
of the courts below and dismissed the suit. 
The High 'Court found that the property came within the defini-
tion of 'land' and, therefore, was subjected to the legal incidence of the 
statutory provisions. In regard to the relief of hhumidhari rights, it held 
G 
that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable. 
Dismissing the appeal this Court, 
HELD: The definition of 'land' in section 3(13) of the Delhi Land 
Reforms Act, 195.4 is wide. A land on which fuel wood is grown would 
H 
59! 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A constitute groveland. In view of the inclusive definition of 'land', the r--
tinding or the High Court that the dispute property constituted land 
cannot be said to be wl'ODI!. [594C-D] 
B 
Nemi Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab & Anr., AIR 
1964 (51) Pwtjab 373; Rajinder Prashad & Anr. v. The Punjab State & 
Ors., AIR 1966 (53) Pwtjab 185; Munshi Ram & Ors. v. Financial Com-
~ 
missioner, Haryana & Ors., [1979] l SCC 471; Hatti v. Sunder Singh, 
[1971] 2 SCR 163 referred to. 
· It is impermissible to rely .oo defmltions containiN meanings dlf. 
ferent from ~ 
definition under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 f~ 
C a proper resolution oftbe dispute. [595AI 
The High Court therefore came to the correct conclusion when it -.., 
held that the disputed property ~nstituted 'land' under the Act, and 
became liable to vest in the Gaon Sabha under the Act. [595B I 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil. Appeal No. 351 
of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1973 of the Delhi High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 69of 1968. 
E 
Rajinder Sachar, Sr. Adv. and K.C. Dua for the Appellants. 
F 
N.S. Das Babat and D.N. Puri forthe Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and the ~\ 
sole legal representative of the original plaintiff is in appeal. 
The plaintiff sued for declaration that inclusion of the disputed 
property in the land records of the respondent Gaon Sabha on the 
basis that it had vested under the provisions of the Delhi Land 
G 
Reforms Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was wrong, 
void and without jurisdiction and for a further declaration that she was 
entitled to bhumidhari rights in the property under section 11 of the7 
Act. Her suit was decreed in the trial court and the said decree was 
affirmedin appeal but at the instance of defendant no. 1, Gaon Sabha, 
the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees of the courts 
H 
below and dismissed the suit. 
-
SMT. KASTURI v. GAON SABHA [MISRA, J.[ 
593 
The suit was instituted on 16.8.1966, The decision of this Court 
in tile case of Hatti v, Sunder Singh, [ 197!.] 2 SCR 163 settled the legal 
position that a claim under section 11 of the Act for declaration of 
bhumidhari right' was not maintainable in the Civil Court in view of 
section 185 of the Aci.read with Schedule I and'exclusive jurisdiction 
for adjudication of such claims vested in the appropriate Revenue 
Court. This position of law is not disputed befo

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