VEENA BIRBAL,J. - (1.)A Single Judge of this court, while hearing the present petition, has made a reference to the Larger Bench for considering certain questions of law as stated in order dated 25.08.2004. This petition is therefore referred to this Bench for answering the reference.
(2.)BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are as under:-
Petitioner is the owner/bhoomidar of land situated in village Kaikorola bearing khasra no. 106/12 min. measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas. Petitioner constructed a small shed on a piece of land measuring 100 sq. yards for the storage of gas cylinders for which permission was granted by the Delhi Fire Department and also for the storage of implements required for carrying out agricultural activities. A major portion of the land, i.e. 1 bigha and 8 biswas is being used for agricultural purposes only. Petitioner has alleged that the village Kaikorola including the land in question along with the entire abadi land and the Revenue Estate of village has been urbanized by the issue of a notification no. F-33/Engg./TP/DP/11424/94 dated 24.10.1994 under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the land is no longer governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. On 29.05.2000, a complaint was filed against the petitioner for misuse of the aforesaid land. Petitioner replied to the same. The Revenue Assistant called for the report of Halqa Patwari and thereafter dismissed the complaint being barred by time vide order dated 14.05.2001. Aggrieved with the said order, respondent filed an appeal under Section 185 of Delhi Reforms Act which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, District South-West, Najafgarh, vide order dated 05.12.2001. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 13.05.2003. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.

The stand of the petitioner before the Single Judge was that the land in question had been urbanized vide notification issued by the MCD dated 24.10.1994 under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, as such the area in question ceased to be a rural area and the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and impugned order was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of Trikha Ram v. Sahib Ram & Anr.; 69 (1997) DLT 749 and Madho Prasad v. Shri Ram Kishan & Ors.; 2001 (7) AD [Delhi 72]. Both the aforesaid cases are decided by a Single Bench of this court. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said contention was also raised before the Financial Commissioner but the same has not been dealt with in the impugned order.

(3.)IN Trikha Ram v. Sahib Ram and Anr. (supra), it has been held that once by virtue of notification issued under Section 507 A of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the land is declared to be an urban land, it could no longer be classified as village abadi land within the definition of land under Delhi Land Reforms Act and the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act would not be applicable. Following the above judgment, another Single Judge of this court in Madho Prasad v. Shri Ram Kishan & Ors. (supra) has held that once Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act notification had been issued urbanizing the property necessarily Delhi Land Reforms Act will have no application.