Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from revenue proceedings initiated by the Gaon Sabha, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi, before the Revenue Assistant/Sub-Divisional Magistrate against one Narender Singh for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use in contravention of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Revenue Assistant directed Narender Singh to reconvert the land to agricultural use within three months, failing which ejectment and vesting of land in the Gaon Sabha would follow. Subsequently, on report of non-compliance, the Revenue Assistant ordered vesting of the land in the Gaon Sabha. The appellants, claiming individual possession of the same land, challenged the orders in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration, contending that they were not given an opportunity of being heard. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision holding that notice to one co-sharer was notice to all and that the appellants' claim of ignorance was unbelievable because proceedings continued from 1984 to 1985. The High Court, approached under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, agreed with the Financial Commissioner. The Supreme Court noted the general proposition that a co-sharer in possession of land holds possession on behalf of other co-sharers and notice served on him would be notice on others, but held that this proposition was not applicable when the appellants claimed individual possession as reflected in Khataunis of the relevant year. The Court observed that because consequences of putting agricultural land to non-agricultural use are drastic, one co-sharer cannot be permitted to hold other co-sharers to ransom by misusing the portion in his possession; his interest would be hostile to the other co-sharers. Therefore, individual notice was essential to be issued to all appellants before action under the provisions. The Court also noted that notice was issued to Narender Singh individually and not as a representative of other co-sharers, and his ejectment was considered enough to be ejectment of all, which was incorrect in the case of individual user personal to each occupant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside all orders of the authorities below and the High Court, and left it open to the revenue authorities to take de novo proceedings against each and every co-sharer separately in possession, if cause for proceedings existed. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Section 81 - Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use - Notice to co-sharers - General proposition that notice to one co-sharer is notice to all applies only when co-sharer holds possession on behalf of all; not applicable when each co-sharer claims individual possession as per Khataunis - Revenue authorities must issue individual notice to each co-sharer in individual possession before ordering reconversion and vesting - Held that failure to give individual notice vitiates the proceedings, and de novo proceedings against each co-sharer separately are permitted. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether notice served on one co-sharer is sufficient notice to all co-sharers before the Revenue Assistant can order conversion back to agricultural use and vest land in Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, particularly when co-sharers claim individual possession according to Khataunis.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; all orders of authorities below and High Court set aside; revenue authorities permitted to take de novo proceedings against each co-sharer separately in possession, if cause exists; no costs.
Law Points
- A co-sharer in possession of land holds possession on behalf of all co-sharers
- so notice to one co-sharer may be notice to all as a general proposition
- but where each co-sharer claims individual possession as reflected in Khataunis
- notice must be served individually on each co-sharer before action under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act
- 1954
- authority cannot treat notice to one co-sharer individually as notice to all when his interest may be hostile
- de novo proceedings permissible against each co-sharer separately in possession if cause exists
