Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Dispossession of Alleged Encroached Land on Yamuna Floodplain: “Revenue Records Do Not Confer Title; Encroachers Cannot Claim Ownership Over Public Land”

Share this article

Court’s Decision:

The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and meritless.
The petitioner failed to prove legal ownership or possession.
The court imposed a Rs. 5,000 cost on the petitioner for abusing the legal process.
The court upheld that Jamabandi records (revenue entries) do not confer ownership.
The land is part of a public environmental restoration project, justifying DDA’s enforcement actions.

Facts of the Case:

1. Petitioner’s Claim:

The petitioner (aged 65) claimed ownership and possession of 2 Bighas and 12 Biswas of land in Khasra Nos. 8 & 12 in Village Chak Chilla, Delhi.
He relied on Jamabandi records from 1982-83 to establish ownership.
He alleged that despite the DDA’s claim of possession in 1997, physical possession was never taken.
In May 2023, the DDA attempted to take physical possession, prompting him to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Government’s Acquisition of the Land:

DDA acquired the land in 1992 under Award No. 22/92-93 for the planned development of Delhi.
Symbolic possession was taken in 1997, but physical possession was pending.
The petitioner alleged that the land should have been de-notified from acquisition, as his possession was never disturbed.

3. Petitioner’s Grievances:

The petitioner sought:
- A stay order against DDA’s eviction efforts.
- Recognition of his legal ownership and possession.
- Directions for DDA to produce acquisition records to prove that the land was indeed acquired.

4. DDA’s Response:

DDA argued that the petitioner was an encroacher and had no legal claim to the land.
The land was lawfully acquired in 1992 and was part of a public environmental project for restoring the Yamuna floodplain.
Demarcation was conducted in 2022, confirming DDA’s possession.
The petitioner was earlier evicted but had re-encroached on the land.

Issues Before the Court:

Does the petitioner have a valid legal claim over the land?
Was the DDA’s acquisition and possession of the land lawful?
Do revenue records (Jamabandi) establish ownership?
Is the land part of a public environmental restoration project?
Did the DDA violate due process in reclaiming the land?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Land Was De-Notified: The petitioner claimed that the land was withdrawn from acquisition under a notification dated 25.01.1995.
Possession for Over 70 Years: He contended that his family had been in possession for more than seven decades.
Reliance on Revenue Records: He relied on Jamabandi entries (1982-83) to claim ownership.
Illegal Actions by DDA: He alleged that DDA was forcibly taking possession without following due process.

Respondent (DDA)’s Arguments:

Petitioner is an Encroacher: The petitioner had no legal title to the land and was occupying public property without authorization.
Land Was Acquired in 1992: The land was lawfully acquired under Award No. 22/92-93, and symbolic possession was taken in 1997.
Revenue Records Do Not Confer Ownership: The petitioner’s reliance on Jamabandi records was legally insufficient.
Public Interest Project: The land is part of Zone ‘O’ of the Yamuna floodplain and is designated for environmental restoration.
Encroachment Was Previously Removed: The petitioner had been evicted before but had re-encroached on the land.
Demarcation Conducted in 2022: The Revenue Authorities confirmed the land was under DDA’s possession.

Legal Analysis:

1. Revenue Records Do Not Establish Ownership

The court reiterated a settled legal principle: Revenue records (like Jamabandi) do not confer ownership.

The court cited:

Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj – Supreme Court ruled that Jamabandi entries alone cannot prove title.
Nathu Ram v. DDA (2022 SCC OnLine Del 315) – The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that sporadic revenue entries are not sufficient for claiming land ownership.

2. Encroachments on Public Land Are Illegal

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Manoj Mishra v. Union of India (2015) ruled that cultivation on the Yamuna floodplain was illegal.
The DDA’s eviction efforts were justified, as the petitioner was obstructing a public project.

3. Acquisition and Possession Were Lawful

The DDA had followed proper legal procedures in acquiring the land in 1992.
Symbolic possession was taken in 1997, making subsequent claims of ownership invalid.

4. Public Interest Projects Take Precedence Over Individual Claims

The land is part of an environmental restoration project for the revitalization of the Yamuna floodplain.
The petitioner’s presence was illegal and hindered public interest efforts.

Precedents Cited:

1. Manoj Mishra v. Union of India (2015)

Banned cultivation on the Yamuna floodplain due to contaminated soil and water.
The court upheld the DDA’s right to evict encroachers.

2. Nathu Ram v. DDA (2022 SCC OnLine Del 315)

The court ruled that Jamabandi records do not establish ownership.
This precedent directly negated the petitioner’s claim.

3. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj

Revenue records do not confer ownership.
The petitioner’s reliance on old Jamabandi entries was legally insufficient.

Court’s Reasoning:

The petitioner had no legally valid title documents.
DDA had lawfully acquired the land, and symbolic possession was taken in 1997.
The petitioner’s presence was unauthorized and obstructed public development.
The land falls in Zone ‘O’ (Yamuna floodplain), making it a public project site.
Cultivation was prohibited under the NGT’s ruling in Manoj Mishra v. Union of India (2015).
The petitioner’s claims lacked merit and were dismissed.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
The petitioner failed to prove ownership or legal possession.
The court imposed a Rs. 5,000 cost for abusing the legal process.
The DDA’s eviction actions were upheld as lawful.

Implications of the Judgment:

Encroachments on public land will not be tolerated.
Revenue records alone cannot establish ownership.
Public interest projects will take precedence over individual claims.
Frivolous litigation will be discouraged with cost penalties.
Strengthens the legal framework for urban development and land acquisition.

This ruling reinforces the government’s authority to reclaim encroached land and prioritizes public interest projects over individual land claims.

DD11 Download

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award: Rejects Challenge Against Liquidated Damages, Unlawful Encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee, and Misinterpretation of Price Variation Clause in Metro Rail Supply Contract Dispute