Nirmala vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citations:                       NOT AVAILABLE  

Date of Judgement:       4 June, 2010

Court:                            Supreme Court of India

Case Type:                    Land Dispute
Petitioner:                     Nirmala & others

Respondent:                  Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Bench:                          Badar Durrez Ahmed (J), Veena Birbal (J)

Referred:                       sub-section (2) of Section 4 Hindu Succession Act,1956 

Facts:

• The widow and the two minor girls of Late Shri Inder Singh were the petitioner in the present case which was for the dispute of a landholder. Preceding his marriage with Nirmala, Late Shri Inder Singh was involved with one more woman Nihali Devi with whom he had two boys and a little girl.
• Inder wedded Nihali Devi in 1997, after the death of his first spouse in 1995. All 3 Respondent present are the offspring of Late Shri Inder Singh and his first spouse.
• After the death of Inder Singh in 2006, Nirmala moved an application before the concerned Tahsildar in 2007, to change the mentioned disputed agrarian land for the petitioners, the Tahsildar however considering Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act didn’t allow it.
•  Nirmala on such reaction called in for a Panchayat conference of the town dated 12.02.2007, settled by the Panchayat it was ruled that against the offspring of Nihali Devi that the share in the disputed farming land possessions claimed by Inder Singh should be divided 1/3^rd among the children of Nirmala.
• This decision gave Nirmala the ownership of a certain portion. On the other hand, children of Nihari Devi made the lives of Petitioner miserable by making deterrents and not permitting the petitioners to work in their fields properly.
• Nirmala then knocked the doors of the concerned S.D.M and Deputy Commissioner in March 2007, but her application was not entertained. Then a writ petition was documented in August 2007.

Legal Issues:

Even if Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act has been repealed by the Amendment Act because of letting go of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In this particular case, do the petitioners presently have the option to succeed in the disputed rural land being female?”

Ration & Decision:

Hon’ble Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ms Justice Veena Birbal gave the decision:

• However, less an instance of suggested repeal, one which until recently existed where the security from revocation, has now been eliminated. The assurance given from any form of obliteration which was in sub-section (2) in the conditions of the Hindu Succession Act would have a far more impact even regarding the present situation of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. 
• The exclusion of sub-section (2) of Section 4 was a thought process of Parliament conscious act. Parliament didn’t need this assurance given to the Delhi Land Reforms Act and other comparative laws to continue. Resulting, subservience to the Hindu Succession Act to inconsistency in the clashing situations between the two acts as The Delhi Land Reforms Act gets set into a place of priority. 
• The court agreed that the court has seen allowance under Article 31B which provide the resistance subject to the force of any law making competent to correct the act.
• The court agreed as efferently how the sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act impacts and was to annul the aforesaid situation of the Delhi Land Reforms Act to inconsistency with the situation clashing of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Article 31B was not a convincing resistance unmistakably, the invulnerability under it was subject to the kind of any competent governing body to correct the act.

Conclusion:

• The Court held that, after the amendment of 2005 the arrangements of the Hindu Succession Act would have more impact over the Sections of Delhi Land Reforms Act (in this particular case Section 50). Which means the rule of Hindi Succession Act would rule over any given rule passed under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Hence, the petitioners were truly qualified to succeed as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the disputed agrarian land as far.

Reference:  

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184914014/

This article is written by Siddhant Raj of University of Allahabad, Intern in Legal Vidhiya.