In The Court of District Magistrate (Kapashera) Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (KAPASHERA)OLD
TERMINAL TAX BUILDING, KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI-110037
In the matter of:
Sh. Bale & ors. ….Appellant
M/s Cambridge Infrastructure (P) Ltd. ……Respondent
Appeal against the impugned order of Ld. RA/SDM, Kapashera

dated 25.09.2019
That appellants are agreed against the order passed by Ld.

RA/SDM Kapashera Delhi, wherein the Ld. SDM has collectively
decided the following cases:
Case ID: 14068
Case No. 49/26/2016 U/s 23 of DLR Act, 1954
Smt. Parmila Tyagi ………….Petitioner
Vs
Sh. Sat Parkash ………..Respondent
And
Case ID:-14196
Case No.49/57/2016 U/s:-23 of DLR Act, 1954
Sh. Dharam Pal & Ors ……….. Petitioner
Vs
Sh. Indraj ………Respondent

And
Case ID:-22010
Case No. 49/70/2019 U/s:-23 of DLR Act, 1954
Sh. Ramesh Chand ……………….Petitioner
Vs
Sh. Mahender Singh & Ors. ……………Respondent
And
Case ID:-22059
Case No. 49/79/2019 U/s: 23 of DLR Act, 1954
Sh. Ramesh Chand ……………..Petitioner
Vs
Sh. Bale & Ors. ……………..Respondent
That the above said cases were decided collectively, without due
application of mind and in a haste manner without appreciating the
true facts and legal aspect of the case.
Case no.49/70/2019
One Sh. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Bhagawan Singh R/o WZ-39-B,
Palam Village, New Delhi authorized signatory of M/s Emmannulle
Agencies (P) Ltd., applied for mutation of land bearing Khasra Nos.
40/16/1 (4-2) & 41/20 (4-18) situated in the Revenue Estate of
village Rewla Khanpur, New Delhi, on 25.04.2019 to Tehsildar
(Kapashera) on the basis of registered sale deed bearing registration
no. 978 in Book No.3 Volume No.409 on page 65 to 66 om
30.06.2006 executed by Sh. Mahender Singh, Surender Singh,
Madan Lal & Paras Ram all sons of Shri Ram Kalan all R/o VPO
Rewla Khanpur, New Delhi through Special Power Attorney holder
Shri R.K. Shokeen S/o Shri Ram Roop R/s D-9, Pushpanjali Farms,
VPO-Bijwasan, New Delhi vide registered SPA dated 23.02.2006
bearing registration No.2074 in Addl. Book No. IV, Volume No.937
on pages 39 & 40.
Initially, the Halqa Patwari submitted report in P-1 form wherein he

mentioned that there are some violations/discrepancies in
sanctioning the aforesaid mutation which are stated as under:-
i. There is violation of Section 33 of DLR Act 1954 as the

land/area less than 8 standards acres has been left in the
name of sellers after selling the land in question.
ii. And a letter has also been filed by M/s Emmanuelle
Agencies (P) Ltd. mentioning therein that the land in
question has already been sold to them by the recorded
Bhumidhars.
iii. Further, the share of Sh. Madan lal has already been
inherited in favour of his legal heirs.
Hence, being disputed the matter was referred to this court by

Tehsildar (Kaopashera) U/s 23 of DLR Act, 1954.
Accordingly, a case U/ 23 was initiated and proceedings were

started.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the appellants are the sons and appellant no….is the wife
(widow) of one Late …………..who sold the joint family
agricultural land in violation of relevant law on the subject as
interpreted in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this
Hon’ble Court in the matter of Air Marshal Satish C Lal & Ans
Versus J.J. Singh& Ors (187) 2012 DLT 471 holding that
when Karta of a joint family alienates property belonging to
joint family without there being any legal necessity or any
other justification for effecting such alienation or when he so
does upon representation that he was the sole owner of the
property, such alienation was void. Thus, alienation of a joint
property by a Karta which was found to be unjustified would
require alienation to be set aside to-to. So in the present case,
karta …………….sold the joint property of coparceners without
any legal necessity an also representing himself as the sole
owner of the property. So the present case of the appellants is
covered by the above mentioned High Court case. Though the
sale deed was executed by Shri………………. 12.04.2006 in
favour of defendant No.1 company M/s Neelmani Exports (P).
Ltd. bu the above fact came to the notice of the plaintiffs only
in March 2013 when the appellants filed an application for
mutation of the property in March 2013, before Ld. Tehsildar
(Revenue), Najafgarh/Kapashera, Delhi, then on filing the
above application they were informed by Revenue Court that
Late Shri. ……….. had executed a sale deed dated 12.04.2006
in favour of M/s Neelmani Exports (P) Ltd.
2. That appellants filed an application before Ld. Revenue Courto

28.03.2013 for getting mutation done in their name regarding
1/6 share of undivided land measuring 52 Bighas and 12
Biswas, mustail No.43, Killa No.10 min (0-13), Mustial No.44,
killa No.1(4-16), 2(4-11), 3 (4-16), 6 (4-12), 7 (4-9),(4-10), 9/1
2-8 26 (0-5), situated in Revenue Estate of village Rewia
Khanpur, Tehsil Najafgarh,. District South –West Delhi. Then
they were told in March 2013 by the Ld. Tehsildar that Late
Sh. ………… had executed a sale deed dated 12.04.2006 in
favour of respondent no.1 company. So now the appellants are
challenging the validity of the above sale deed on the grounds
stated in the plaint below including that the sale deed was
void ab initio as the land being in the joint ownership of
coparcenars (Late……………and appellants) and also having
the undivided share in the agricultural land, the sale could not
have been affected by Karta except for legal necessity. In fact,
there was no legal necessity shown in the sale deed. Late
………………….. also represented himself as the sole owner of
the land which was not the correct situation so the sale deed
dated 12.04.2006 between …………. and respondent no….
company is void ab initio as per the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
judgment in Air Marshal Satish (Supra).
3. That on 02.04.2006 Late …………….. son of ……………..

executed a Sale Deed regarding 1/6 share of undivided land
measuring 52 Bighas and 12 Biswas, mustail no.43, Killa
no.10 min (0-13), Mustial no.44, Killa no.1 (4-16), 2(4-11), 3
(4-16), 6 (4-12), 7 (4-9), (4-10), 9/1 2-8 26(0-5), siuated in
Revenue Estate of Village Rewla Khanpur, Tehsil Najafgarh,
District South-West Delhi.
4. The above alleged Sale Deed dated 02.04.2006 is in violation of

Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act as per the recent Judgment
of Division Bench in Air Marshal Satish C. Lal & Anr. Versus
J.J Singh & Ors (Supra) of this High Court.
5. Further as per the family tree, Shri…………….has a wife

(widow) ………………. And two sons Sh. ……………….. and
………………. As per law of land even the wife and sons have
equal rights in the joint property and any sale deed as per law
of land will be invalid on that ground also. The Division Bench
of Delhi High Court in Air Marshal Satish C. Lal & Anr. Versus
J.J Singh & Ors (Supra) has clearly held that when karta of a
joint Hindu family alienates property belonging to joint Hindu
family without there being any legal necessity or any other
justification for effecting such alienation or when he so does
upon representation that he is sole owner of property, such
alienation has to be treated as void. Hence this suit for
declaring the above Sale Deed as illegal and void as per law of
land.
6. A family tree of the family of the plaintiffs is given under:
7. That the land in question is an ancestral agricultural land of

the appellants and the appellants are the joint owners as per
the above family tree by in April 2006, ………………….,
ancestor of appellants entered into an agreement to sell with
respondent company without consent of their joint owners or
taking any relinquishment deed or without obtaining no
objection from his legal heirs. They also agreed to sell
undivided share without demarcation as per the above sale
deed.
So the above sale deed is void ab initio because ancestor of

appellants chose to sell the undivided agricultural land of
appellants without legal necessity or any other justification so
in the light of judgment of Division Bench of this Court
(Supra), the above sale deed is bad in law and liable to be
declared illegal, the defendant is only entitled to get its money
back and the appellants are willing and able to do so when
this Hon’ble Court orders them to do so.
8. That despite the alleged sale deed of 2006, the appellants are
in possession of the agricultural land and they are cultivating
the same till date. In fact, the revenue records also showed the
name of the ancestors of the appellants in the revenue record
till today. So even otherwise, the Sale Deed was never acted
upon because the appellants are cultivating the land even
after the so-called sale deed till date.
9. That the cause of action arose in the favour of the Appellants

and against the respondent first in the year of 2006 when the
sale deed 12.04.2006 was executed in favour of the
respondent. The cause of action again arose when the
appellant filed an application for mutation in their name of the
property in March 2013 before Ld. Tehsildar (Revenue),
Kapshera, Delhi and then on filing of above application they
were informed by Revenue Court that Late Sh……………. had
executed a sale deed dated 12.04.2006. That the cause of
action is recurring and subsisting one.
10. That since the appellants are living in NCT, Delhi and the
respondents are also living in Delhi hence this Hon’ble Court
has the territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

In The Court of District Magistrate (Kapashera) Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court of District Magistrate (Kapashera) Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court of District Magistrate (Kapashera) Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (KAPASHERA)OLD

TERMINAL TAX BUILDING, KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI-110037

In the matter of:

Sh. Bale & ors. ….Appellant

M/s Cambridge Infrastructure (P) Ltd. ……Respondent

Appeal against the impugned order of Ld. RA/SDM, Kapashera

That appellants are agreed against the order passed by Ld.

Case ID: 14068

Case No. 49/26/2016 U/s 23 of DLR Act, 1954

Smt. Parmila Tyagi ………….Petitioner

Sh. Sat Parkash ………..Respondent

Case No.49/57/2016 U/s:-23 of DLR Act, 1954

Sh. Dharam Pal & Ors ……….. Petitioner

Sh. Indraj ………Respondent

Case No. 49/70/2019 U/s:-23 of DLR Act, 1954

Sh. Ramesh Chand ……………….Petitioner

Sh. Mahender Singh & Ors. ……………Respondent

Case No. 49/79/2019 U/s: 23 of DLR Act, 1954

Sh. Ramesh Chand ……………..Petitioner

Sh. Bale & Ors. ……………..Respondent

Initially, the Halqa Patwari submitted report in P-1 form wherein he

i. There is violation of Section 33 of DLR Act 1954 as the

Hence, being disputed the matter was referred to this court by

Accordingly, a case U/ 23 was initiated and proceedings were

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

2. That appellants filed an application before Ld. Revenue Courto

3. That on 02.04.2006 Late …………….. son of ……………..

4. The above alleged Sale Deed dated 02.04.2006 is in violation of

5. Further as per the family tree, Shri…………….has a wife

6. A family tree of the family of the plaintiffs is given under:

7. That the land in question is an ancestral agricultural land of

So the above sale deed is void ab initio because ancestor of

9. That the cause of action arose in the favour of the Appellants

You might also like