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- Land Was De-Notified: The petitioner claimed that the land was withdrawn from acquisition under a notification dated 25.01.1995.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.