S.RANGARAJAN - (1.)This judgment wil dispose of C.W. 485 of 1973 also. However, it would be sufficient to state the facts in C.W. 486 of 1973 alone.
(2.)The petitioners (Daryao Singh and Narain Singh) purchased land,described in paragraph I of the petition, situate in village Akbarpur Majra from Mange Ram (second respondent) by means of a registered sale deed; mutation was sanctioned in their favour by an order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 19-11-1968. By an order of the Revenue Assistant, dated 31-10-1967, Mange Ram was declared bhoomidhar. This declaration became effective from 20-7-1954, on which date the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into force. The petitioners were continuing in possession of the said land and were cultivating the sama ever since the date of purchase. When they obtained a copy of the Khatauni from the Patwari in the month of April, 1973, for the purpose of applying for an agricultural loan, they came to know that an entry had been made in the revenue records to the effect that the said land had been taken possession of under the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act, 1960 on 11-5-1971. The said entry in the revenue records about the taxing possession of the land is attached being tactually incorrect: it is also criticised as being old since it is stated to record the delivery of an undivided half share in the land.
(3.)On further enquiries the petitioners learnt that in proceedings held under the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act it had been declared that one Deep Chand son of Birkha Ram (third respondent) owned the said land in excess of the ceiling limit and that the petitioners' land had been treated as surplus land in the hands of the said Deep Chand, and that it had been declared as such under section 9 of the Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act. The petitioners assert that they did not receive any notice from any authority constituted under the said Act in respect of any proceedings under the said Act; Mange Ram also received no such notice. The petitioners further assert that their names and before them, the name of Mange Ram, were shown in the revenue records as being in possession of the above land.