Sanraj Farms Private Limited v. Shri Charan Singh & Another

order therein.

¶23In view of the aforesaid judgments which are binding on me, it has but to be held that on the issuance of notification dated 18th June, 2013, the land subject matter of the suit, insofar as for the purposes of maintainability of the proceedings before the Courts under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, has ceased to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Issue No.I is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

¶24Axiomatically, qua Issue No. II, it is held that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this suit for partition of the subject land is not barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

¶25In view of the finding above, the need to go into the question, whether a suit for declaration alone, even if not a suit for partition, would be maintainable, does not arise and the said legal question is thus left unanswered.

¶26Issue No. IV is decided observing that though inter se the parties to the suit it is held that in view of the notifications aforesaid, the proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act do not affect this suit, however, viz-a-viz the Delhi Government, the plaintiff will have to raise its contentions before the Revenue Assistant or before other appropriate fora/Court.

¶27The counsel for the defendants, on specific query whether the defendants are disputing the three-fourth share claimed by the plaintiff in the land, states that it is not disputed that the plaintiff is the owner of three-fourth undivided share in the land admeasuring 28 bighas 2 biswas aforesaid and the share of the two defendants jointly is one-fourth. On further enquiry whether the defendants desire inter se

partition, the answer is in the affirmative and it is stated that the share of the two defendants in the said one-fourth land is equal i.e. one-eighth each.

¶28That leaves the plea of the plaintiff, of the land having already been partitioned.

¶29The counsel for the plaintiff in this context has drawn attention to site plan at page 16 of the Part IIIA file and has contended that the portion of the land shown in yellow colour represents three-fourth land and in the partition had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and the portion of the land shown in red stripes represents one-fourth undivided share in the land and had jointly fallen to the shares of the defendants.

¶30The counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn attention to the Ekrarnama dated 19th August, 2008 executed by the plaintiff and the two defendants.

¶31The counsel for the defendants does not deny signatures of the defendants on the Ekrarnama dated 19th August, 2008 as well as on the site plan at page 16 of the Part-IIIA file but contends that the said document was executed only for the purposes of better utilization/cultivation of the land and not by way of partition of the land. Ex.C-2 is put on the Ekrarnama dated 19th August, 2008 in today"s date.

¶32I have enquired from the counsel for the defendants that even if the defendants are disputing the partition claimed by the plaintiff and do not find the partition by metes and bounds as depicted in the site

plan at page 16 of the Part-IIIA file to be equitable, how else do the defendants want the land to be equitably partitioned.

¶33The counsel for the defendants has not suggested any mode of partition other than by metes and bounds and has fairly stated that the partition as depicted in the site plan at page 16 divides the three-fourth share of the plaintiff and one-fourth share of the two defendants by metes and bounds equitably subject to the objection of the defendants of the maintainability of the suit before this Court owing to the bar of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

¶34Once it is so, even if the land has not been partitioned earlier by metes and bounds, there is no impediment to now a decree for partition of the subject land by metes and bounds as shown in the site plan at page 16 of Part IIIA file and on which now Ex.C-1 is put in today"s date, being passed.

¶35I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, whether site plan Ex.C-1 shows the dimensions of the separate demarcations of the land.

¶36The counsel for the plaintiff states that boundary walls were erected in August, 2008 at about the time when the Ekrarnama and the site plan Ex.C-1 were filed.

¶37The counsel for the defendants confirms. She however states that the boundary walls were not constructed by the plaintiff but were constructed by the defendants themselves.

¶38Thus, the land has also been physically divided by metes and bounds.

¶39In view of the aforesaid emerging position, the need to relegate the parties to evidence on Issue No. III is also not felt.

¶40Resultantly, a preliminary decree for partition of land comprised in Khasra Nos.942 (4-16), 943 (4-16), 944 (4-16), 946 min (4-9), 947 (4-16) and 945 min. (4-9), totally measuring 28 bighas 2 biswas, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, is passed declaring the plaintiff Sanraj Farms Pvt. Ltd. to be having three-fourth undivided share therein and declaring the two defendants Charan Singh and Bhagwan Singh to be having one-eighth undivided share each therein.

¶41Preliminary decree for partition be drawn up.

¶42A final decree for partition of land comprised in Khasra Nos.942 (4-16), 943 (4-16), 944 (4-16), 946 min (4-9), 947 (4-16) and 945 min. (4-9), totally measuring 28 bighas 2 biswas, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi by metes and bounds is also passed, in terms of site plan Ex.C-2 and in accordance wherewith boundary walls are informed to have been already erected on the land.

¶43Final decree for partition be drawn up.

¶44The stamp duty on the final decree for partition to be borne by the parties in the ratio of plaintiff"s three-fourth share and each of the two defendants one-eighth share.

¶45The parties to bear their own costs.

Decree sheet be prepared.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 10, 2019 "gsr/ak".. (Corrected & released on 24th October, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th October, 2019 + CS(OS) 165/2018 SANRAJ FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav with Ms. Ruchira, Advs. Versus CHARAN SINGH & ANOTHER ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat & Ms. Hafsa Khan, Advs. for GNCTD. Ms. Suman Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, for (i) declaration that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.942 (4-16), 943(4-16), 944(4-16), 946 min (4-9), 947 (4-16) and 945 min. (4-9), totally measuring 28 Bighas 2 Biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has already been partitioned in accordance with the settlement recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 19th August, 2008 and in the alternative for partition of the said land declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of 3/4th undivided share therein and the two defendants viz. Charan Singh & Bhagwan Singh to be the owner of the remaining 1/4th share in the said land; and, (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said land. 2. The suit came up first before this Court on 17th April, 2018, when while issuing summons thereof, status quo with respect to title of the subject land was directed to be maintained. 3. The suit, after completion of pleadings, came up before this Court on 28th November, 2018 when the following order was passed: "12. The suit is ripe for framing of issues. 13. The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants have handed over proposed issues which are taken on record. 14. The plaintiff has sued for declaration that the land subject matter of the suit stands partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants and in the alternative for partition of the subject land. Relief of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the land is also sought. 15. It is inter alia the defence of the defendants that the suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. 16. The counsel for the plaintiff states that with the issuance of Notification dated 18th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) in exercise of powers under Section 11(A)(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, making modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021, the land ceased to be governed by the Delhi Reforms Act. Alternatively, it is contended that even if the land continues to be governed by the Delhi Reforms Act, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction, though not for partition. 17. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that though the plaintiff called upon the defendants to have the land so partitioned mutated in the records in respective bhumidari of the plaintiff and the defendants but the defendants did not join in the same. 18. I have wondered, whether not the remedy of the plaintiff therefor would be in terms of serial No.4 of Schedule I of the Delhi Reforms Act read with Section 185 thereof i.e. of applying for declaration of bhumidari rights. 19. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues are framed: (I) Whether with the issuance of Notification dated 18th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) in exercise of powers under Section 11(a)(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the land subject matter of the suit has seized to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954? OPP (II) If the above issue is decided against the plaintiff, whether the suit for declaration, as filed, is maintainable in the Civil Court or jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect thereto is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPPr (III) If the above issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the suit land was partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties and the defendants as claimed by the plaintiff and if so, to what effect? OPP (IV) What is the effect, if any of