Analysis of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

An Analysis of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: Ejectment for Misuse of Agricultural Land and the Interplay with Urbanization

Introduction

Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "DLR Act") stands as a cornerstone provision designed to regulate the use of agricultural land within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Its primary objective is to ensure that land designated for agricultural and allied purposes is not diverted to non-permissible uses, thereby preserving the agrarian character of such areas and preventing unauthorized constructions or changes in land use. This section empowers revenue authorities to eject a Bhumidhar or Asami who contravenes these land use restrictions and provides for the subsequent vesting of such land in the Gaon Sabha.

The application and interpretation of Section 81 have been subjects of considerable judicial scrutiny, particularly in light of Delhi's rapid urbanization. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 81, examining its legislative intent, scope, procedural mechanisms, and the consequences of its violation. It will delve into key judicial pronouncements that have shaped the understanding of this provision, with a particular focus on the jurisdiction of revenue courts, the definition of "non-agricultural purposes," and the complex interplay between the DLR Act and the processes of urbanization under other statutes like the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

Legislative Framework of Section 81 of the DLR Act

Section 81 of the DLR Act is titled "Ejectment for use of land in contravention of provisions of this Act." Its core components are:

  • Section 81(1): This sub-section stipulates that a Bhumidhar or an Asami shall be liable to ejectment from their holding or any part thereof, on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder, as the case may be, if they use such land for any purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry (which includes pisciculture and poultry farming). The Revenue Assistant is also empowered to initiate proceedings suo motu.
  • Section 81(2): This sub-section outlines the consequence of such ejectment. If a decree for ejectment is passed, the Bhumidhar or Asami is ejected, and the land in question vests in the Gaon Sabha from the date of the decree.

The interpretation of Section 81 necessitates a conjoint reading with other relevant provisions of the DLR Act. Section 22 defines the rights of a Bhumidhar, granting them exclusive possession of their land and the right to use it for any purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming (*Gaon Sabha Nanakheri v. Sucheta Memorial Trust*, Delhi High Court, 2018). Section 23 of the DLR Act contains specific provisions regarding the use of land for industrial purposes, generally restricting such use unless the land is situated in an area declared by the Chief Commissioner (now Lieutenant Governor) as an industrial belt.

The term "improvement" as defined in Section 3(12) of the DLR Act is also pertinent. A Bhumidhar is entitled to make improvements to their land, which can include certain types of constructions, provided they are consistent with the agricultural nature of the holding or are ancillary to agricultural operations (*Gaon Sabha Nanakheri v. Sucheta Memorial Trust*, Delhi High Court, 2018).

Furthermore, the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, framed under the DLR Act, provide procedural guidance. Rule 21A, titled "Use of land for non-agricultural purposes (Section 81)," mandates the Patwari (village accountant) to submit a report to the Tahsildar as soon as they learn that the provisions of Section 23 have been violated and any land has been used for non-agricultural purposes. This report must include details such as the name of the Bhumidhar/Asami, plot numbers, area affected, nature of misuse, and date of conversion (*SH AJAY SINGHAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.*, Delhi High Court, 2022; *Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi*, Delhi High Court, 2022).

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 81

The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the contours of Section 81, addressing various legal issues arising from its application.

Initiation of Proceedings and Liability for Ejectment

Proceedings under Section 81 are typically initiated by the Gaon Sabha, or the landholder, by filing a suit before the Revenue Assistant. The Revenue Assistant also possesses suo motu powers to commence such proceedings (*Sukhdev Singh v. Pio, Block Development Office (Saket)*, Central Information Commission, 2015). An inquiry is conducted, usually by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)/Revenue Assistant, to determine if there has been a violation. If illegal constructions or non-permissible use is established, an order of ejectment can be passed, leading to the land vesting in the Gaon Sabha (*Sukhdev Singh v. Pio, Block Development Office (Saket)*, CIC, 2015; *Mrsukhdev Singh v. Gnctd*, CIC, 2016).

The Delhi High Court in *Gaon Sabha Nanakheri v. Sucheta Memorial Trust* (2018) clarified that Section 81 is primarily directed towards lands that are mandated by the DLR Act to be used for agriculture or related purposes. It does not automatically extend to all types of land covered by the Act, such as lands designated as 'abadi' (village residential area) or those specifically permitted for industrial use under provisions like Section 23, read with Section 3(12) concerning improvements.

Concept of "Use for Non-Agricultural Purposes"

The central trigger for invoking Section 81 is the "use of land for any purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, pisciculture and poultry farming." What constitutes such a prohibited use is a question of fact to be determined by the revenue authorities based on the evidence presented in each case.

In *GAON SABHA BIJWASAN v. SH. ROHIT RALHAN* (Delhi High Court, 2020), the court upheld the findings of fact recorded by three tiers of revenue authorities that there was no violation of the DLR Act. The property was found to be predominantly used for agricultural purposes, specifically for the plantation of vegetables and flowers. Consequently, it was held that no proceedings under Section 81 could be initiated. This underscores that a mere ancillary non-agricultural use might not attract Section 81 if the predominant use remains agricultural.

The right of a Bhumidhar to make "improvements" as defined in Section 3(12) of the DLR Act is a crucial consideration. Constructions that qualify as improvements and are ancillary to agricultural operations or maintain the primary agricultural character of the land generally do not attract the penal provisions of Section 81 (*Gaon Sabha Nanakheri v. Sucheta Memorial Trust*, Delhi High Court, 2018).

Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts and Bar on Civil Courts

The DLR Act is recognized as a comprehensive and self-contained code governing land tenure and reforms in the areas to which it applies. Section 185 of the DLR Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of suits and applications of the nature specified in Schedule I of the Act, for which relief can be obtained through revenue authorities.

The Supreme Court, in landmark cases such as *Hatti v. Sunder Singh* (1970 SCC 2 841) and *Gaon Sabha And Another v. Nathi And Others* (2004 SCC 12 555), has firmly established the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts for matters falling within the ambit of the DLR Act.

Specifically concerning actions related to the misuse of land and unauthorized constructions, the Delhi High Court in *Shri Anil Kumar v. B. R. B. Construction Pvt. Ltd.* (Delhi High Court, 2008) held that a suit for an injunction to restrain defendants from raising constructions on agricultural land is comprehended by Section 83 of the DLR Act (which deals with injunctions for wrongful acts or damage to holdings). Such a suit, therefore, attracts the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 185. Entry 18 of Schedule I to the DLR Act, which refers to "suit for injunction or for the repair of the waste or damage caused to the holdings," further reinforces this position. Proceedings for ejectment under Section 81 are explicitly listed as matters for which Revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Impact of Urbanization on Section 81 Proceedings

One of the most contentious and evolving areas of law concerning Section 81 is its applicability to lands that have undergone urbanization. Urbanization in Delhi typically occurs through notifications issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act), which declares a rural area to be urban, or through the inclusion of land in Master Plans or Zonal Development Plans formulated under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DDA Act).

The Delhi High Court in *Shri Neelpadmaya Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Satyabir* (Delhi High Court, 2016) observed that the term "land" under Section 3(13) of the DLR Act excludes land occupied by buildings in a town or village and not occupied or let for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The court noted that urbanization, whether through a notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act or by inclusion in DDA's development plans, can effectively take such lands out of the purview of the DLR Act.

This principle was further elaborated in *SMT. SHWETA AGARWAL & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF-NCT OF DELHI, & ANR.* (Delhi High Court, 2023). Referencing the earlier decision in *Gur Pratap Singh v. Union of India* (2004) 111 DLT 25, the court reiterated that once an area becomes the subject matter of a notification under the DDA Act by way of a master plan or zonal plan, such land is considered urbanized and, therefore, falls outside the scope of the DLR Act.

In *Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Gaon Sabha Rajokri And Others* (Delhi High Court, 2023), the court held in categorical terms that once land is declared urban (in that case, also recognized as a Low Density Residential Area - LDRA through a Central Government notification), the provisions of the DLR Act, including Section 81, cease to apply. Consequently, proceedings under Section 81 cannot continue, especially if they had already been dropped by a revenue court prior to or around the time of urbanization.

The complexities arising from this transition are highlighted in *SUSHMA AGGARWAL v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.* (Delhi High Court, 2024). In this case, land was vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 by an order of the SDM *after* the village in question had been urbanized through a notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act. The petitioner, who was the subsequent purchaser and not a party to the Section 81 proceedings, challenged this order, raising significant questions about the legality and propriety of continuing DLR Act proceedings post-urbanization.

Conversely, the pendency of Section 81 proceedings even when urbanization status is a relevant factor is evident from cases like *M/S SUKH SANSAR HOUSING PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.* (Delhi High Court, 2024), where writ petitions were filed seeking directions to the Deputy Commissioner to drop long-pending Section 81 proceedings.

Procedural Aspects and Consequences of Violation

As outlined in Rule 21A of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, the process often begins with a report from the Patwari to the Tahsildar regarding the non-agricultural use of land (*SH AJAY SINGHAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.*, Delhi High Court, 2022). The Revenue Assistant, upon receiving such information or acting suo motu, initiates an inquiry.

If, after due process, it is established that the Bhumidhar or Asami has used the land in contravention of the permissible uses under the DLR Act, an order of ejectment is passed. The primary consequence, as per Section 81(2), is that the land vests in the Gaon Sabha from the date of the decree. Decisions of the Revenue Assistant are subject to appeal before higher revenue authorities, such as the Deputy Commissioner/Collector.

Several orders from the Central Information Commission (CIC) shed light on the practical execution of these proceedings. For instance, in *Sukhdev Singh v. Pio, Block Development Office (Saket)* (CIC, 2015) and *Mrsukhdev Singh v. Gnctd* (CIC, 2016), it was noted that where illegal constructions on agricultural land are proven in an inquiry under Section 81, the land vests in the Gaon Sabha. *Shyamvir Singh v. Sdm(Hk)* (CIC, 2011) involved queries about whether activities other than agriculture/dairy/poultry on agricultural land attract Section 81 and whether notices were being issued to unauthorized colonies under this section. These cases illustrate the public interface with Section 81 proceedings and the information sought by citizens regarding their application.

Conclusion

Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, plays a vital role in the land management framework of Delhi, aiming to prevent the unauthorized conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural uses. The judiciary has consistently upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts to adjudicate matters arising under this section and has provided crucial interpretations regarding what constitutes "non-agricultural use" and the procedural requirements for ejectment.

The most significant contemporary challenge to the application of Section 81 arises from the progressive urbanization of Delhi. The prevailing judicial consensus indicates that once land is formally declared urban through statutory notifications under the DMC Act or the DDA Act, the DLR Act, including Section 81, ceases to be applicable. This transition, however, is often a source of legal disputes, particularly concerning the fate of ongoing Section 81 proceedings or actions initiated after an area's character has effectively changed.

Therefore, while Section 81 remains a potent tool for regulating land use in areas still governed by the DLR Act, its relevance diminishes as areas become urbanized. Clear administrative guidelines and timely conclusion or formal cessation of DLR Act proceedings upon urbanization are essential to ensure legal certainty, protect the rights of landowners, and harmonize the objectives of land reform with the imperatives of planned urban development in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.