1997 (2) TMI 574 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether "gair mumkin pahar" land is cultivable land under the meaning of explanation to Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
2. Whether the respondents are entitled to compensation for the acquired land.

Summary:

Issue 1: Cultivability of "Gair Mumkin Pahar" Land
The primary question was whether "gair mumkin pahar" land is considered cultivable under the explanation to Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court examined the definitions and provisions under Sections 3(13), 3(11), 3(12A), 5, 7, 11, and 154 of the Act. It was noted that the land in question was recorded as "gair mumkin pahar" in the revenue records, indicating it is uncultivable waste land. The Court concluded that "gair mumkin pahar" does not qualify as cultivable land and, therefore, does not fall under the exclusion provided in the explanation to Section 7. Consequently, such land stands vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 7 read with Section 154 of the Act.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Compensation
The respondents claimed entitlement to compensation for the acquired land, arguing they were bhumidhars. However, the Court found that the respondents did not hold the land as proprietors or bhumidhars. The land was not cultivated by the proprietors and did not meet the criteria for khudkhast land. As per Section 154, all lands, except those comprised in any holding or grove, vest in the Gaon Sabha. The Court referenced the precedent set in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, which clarified that lands not held by bhumidhars or other tenants vest in the Gaon Sabha, extinguishing the rights of the proprietors. The earlier civil suit and the High Court's remittance to the Deputy Commissioner did not conclusively determine the nature of the land. Therefore, the Division Bench's judgment, which held that "gair mumkin pahar" is cultivable waste land and awarded compensation to the respondents, was found to be in error.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirmed the District Court's decision that the land in question stood vested in the Gaon Sabha. The appeal was allowed without costs.