Delhi High Court: While perusing a report by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (‘DSLSA’) dated 03-09-2024, a Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J. opined that the absence of a documentation mechanism by land-owning agencies post urbanization disproportionately affects the urban poor and thus, directed the Registry to register the present report as a suo motu writ petition.
The Court noted that DSLSA had organized an inauguration ceremony focused on addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by the remote and underdeveloped areas of Delhi, and uplifting them through a comprehensive strategy of legal empowerment, healthcare, education, and awareness.
This project was launched by DSLSA at Jaunti Village under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kanjhawala in the North-West district of Delhi as the first target area. Under the Project, every District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’) was given the task to identify and uplift such remote and underdeveloped areas.
During the interactive session that took place with the residents of the village, concerns were raised regarding the mutation in the land records. The residents stated they wished to get their respective immovable properties that they had inherited from their ancestors to be mutated in their names in the land records as per law.
It was stated that the residents had applied for mutations of inherited properties with all necessary documents but faced delays despite persistent efforts over the years. It was stated that the only response that they received from the government agencies concerned was that because the village had been urbanized under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (‘DMC Act’), the mutation of the properties in the land records had been halted by the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’).
When DSLSA enquired into this issue, they were informed by the North-West DLSA that after the mega service camp, eight persons had approached the newly inaugurated legal services clinic at the ‘Panchayat Ghar’ as well as the North-West DLSA and stated that even though the names of their ancestors were duly recorded in the land records, the mutation entries could not be made as the village land had been urbanized through Notification dated 28-01-2019 and the land had been transferred to Municipal agencies.
The Court said that further deliberation with various government agencies and advocates dealing with revenue cases revealed that this problem had persisted for nearly two decades and had affected many urbanized villages without a clear mutation policy. It was also noted that Section 507(a) of the DMC Act read with Section 150(3) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (‘Land Reforms Act’) stated that after a notification under the said provisions, the Gram Sabha stands dissolved, and the land gets vested in the Central Government.
As a result of such a notification, the village ceases to be a part of ‘rural areas’ within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the DMC Act and is included in the definition of ‘urban areas’ because of which, the Revenue Department of GNCTD ceases to maintain land records related to these urbanized areas.
The Court stated that even though the non-applicability of the Land Reforms Act to the villages after their urbanization is no longer res integra due to the law laid down in Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1334 and in Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, there was complete absence of any law/policy/guidelines/rules whereby the rights of mutation could be availed by the residents of such villages before the appropriate forum in cases of such lands being notified as ‘development areas’ under the provisions of Section 12 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957.
The Court stated that the absence of a documentation mechanism by land-owning agencies post-urbanization disproportionately affects the urban poor and that the lack of formal property rights evidence prevents access to credit facilities for construction and renovation, benefits from government schemes, and participation in land pooling policy of the Delhi government.
The Court said that such a legal vacuum disabling the villagers from managing their immovable properties prima facie violates their fundamental right under Article 21 and their constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and needs to be addressed at the earliest by the departments/government agencies concerned.
Thus, the Court directed the Registry to register the aforesaid report as a suo motu writ petition and issued notice to the Land and Development Officer, L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Secretary (Revenue)/Development Commissioner, GNCTD, and Member Secretary, DSLSA.
[Court on its own motion v. L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development, W.P.(C) No. ____ of 2024, Decided on 04-09-2024]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
