Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs . Raj Singh & Ors. on 26 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 71/09/90
In the matter of :
Union of India Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
1. Shri Raj Singh son of Late Shri Piyare Lal,
R/o A41, Nangal Dewat,
Delhi. ... IP No. 1
2. Shri Mahender Singh son of Shri Amar Singh,
R/o B60, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 073. ... IP No. 2
3. Gaon Sabha, Sahupur,
Nangal Dewat, Delhi. ... IP No. 3
4. Shri Khazan Singh (Impleaded vide orders dated 21.05.92)
(Since deceased) through LRs:
a. Smt. Mishri Devi
Wife of Shri Khazan Singh
b. Shri Rohtas Singh son of Late Shri Khazan Singh
c. Shri Amarjeet Singh son of Late Shri Khazan Singh
d. Shri Ajeet Singh son of Late Shri Khazan Singh
e. Smt. Phoolwati wife of Shri Jagbir Singh
daughter of Shri Khazan Singh
All residents of Village and Post Office
Shahbad Mohammedpur, New Delhi - 110 061.
... IP No. 4
LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 1/22
Village : Sahupur
Award No.: 17/8687
Filed on : 19.05.1990
Reserved on : 19.07.2011
Decided on : 26.07.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Subject matter of the reference is agricultural land in village Sahupur, Delhi comprised in Khasra No. 64/2 (305) and 74 (49) total measuring 7 bigha and 14 biswa.
3. Vide award no. 17/8687, 1156 bigha of land in village Sahupur was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. Land in question was also acquired vide said award.
4. The Collector assessed Rs. 1,93,091/ as compensation for the land in question.
5. However, compensation for land in question was not released in favour of anyone because the recorded owner of land was Gaon Sabha but IP No. 1 and 2 Shri Raj Singh and Shri Mahender Singh respectively had filed objections against release of compensation in favour of Gaon Sabha.
6. Therefore, the Collector referred this reference to this Court. Nature of dispute is mentioned in memorandum as "Title LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 2/22 Dispute".
7. To safeguard the interest of interested persons, learned predecessor of this Court has deposited the said amount in Indian Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi as back as 19.05.1990.
8. Vide orders dated 21.05.1992, IP No. 4 Shri Khajan Singh was also impleaded as interested person as he claimed a sale deed of land in question in his favour.
9. Therefore, the contest became a triangular contest.
10. Again, vide orders dated 19.01.2010, Ministry of Urban Affairs was also issued notice of this reference because land in question was found to be urbanised under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and successor of Gaon Sabha is Union of India in all suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings instituted or which might have been instituted by or against the Gaon Sabha. Reference can be made to Section 150 (3) (d) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in this regard.
11. Case of IP No. 3 , Gaon Sabha, in its claim petition filed on 01.04.1992 is that the Gaon Sabha is bhumidar of the land in question and was in possession when award no. 17/198687 was passed. It is further stated that possession of the land was also taken from Gaon Sabha.
12. There is another claim petition on record filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha on 23.08.1995. In this claim petition, additional LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 3/22 submission is made that no one had preferred claim for declaring bhumidar of land in question and no one preferred for correction of khasra girdawari, therefore, Gaon Sabha is entitled to receive entire compensation. Why two claims were filed by Gaon Sabha is not clear from the records.
13. Case of IP No. 1 and 2 is that they were in actual physical and cultivatory possession since the "time immemorial" and possession was taken over by the Collector at the time of acquisition from them. IP No. 1 and 2 further submitted that due to their long cultivatory possession over land in question their right to be declared as bhumidars had matured as per provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act because Gaon Sabha had failed to file ejectment suit against IP No. 1 and 2 within statutory period of three years. IP No. 1 and 2 submitted that their cultivatory possession over land in question was also recorded in revenue records. However, formal orders to declare IP No. 1 and 2 bhumidar were not passed because land was acquired. However, it was also submitted IP would be contended to get larger share of compensation if not the entire compensation in case this Court comes to the conclusion that they are not entitled to receive the entire compensation as they are not the recorded owner. Therefore, IP No. 1 and 2 claimed that, without prejudice, if the entire compensation is not be given to them at least a larger share be given to them.
14. Case of IP No. 4 in his claim petition is that he had LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 4/22 purchased the land in question from its erstwhile owner vide registered sale deed dated 27.01.1961 and was the owner in possession of land in question and is entitled to receive the entire compensation. It is also submitted by IP No. 4 that no order of vesting of land under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act in favour of Gaon Sabha was ever passed and in any case IP No. 4 was not served with any notice of such proceedings at any stage.
15. On 27.10.2009, following issues were framed: i. Which of the IPs is entitled to receive the compensation?
ii. Relief.
16. On 12.10.1999, Shri M. Satya Babu, Panchayat Secretary, Najafgarh Block (Block Development Office) tendered in evidence copies of khasra girdawaris as Ex. IPW3/W1 to 10. The witness stated in the crossexamination that he had no personal knowledge of exhibited documents and could not say if IP No. 1 and 2 were in cultivatory possession since 1982 till its acquisition.
17. Ex.IP3/W1/1 is certified copy of khatoni of Kh. No. 64/1 (111) of village Sahupur for the year 198081. Land in question is in Kh. No. 64/2 and 74. Therefore, this documents is irrelevant for the decision of this reference.
18. Ex. IP3/W1/2 is certified copy of khasra girdawari for the year 198384. As per this document, Kh. No. 64/2(35) was not LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 5/22 under cultivation of any one.
19. Ex. IP3W1/3 is again khatoni for the year 197677 for Kh. No. 64/1(111) of village Sahupur. As land in Kh. No. 64/1 is not subject matter of this reference, this document is also irrelevant for the disposal of this reference. Same is the position of Ex. IP3W1/4 which is khatoni for the year, 197273 for land in Kh. No. 64/1.
20. Ex. IP3W1/5 is certified copy of khatoni for the year 196869 as per which land in question is "BanjarNakabile Kasht."
21. Ex. IP3/W1/6 is certified copy of Khatoni for land in Kh. No. 117 (117) and is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of disposal of this reference.
22. Ex. IP3W1/7 is certified copy of khasra girdawari of land in Kh. No. 64/2 (305) for the year, 1986 to 1987. As per this document, land in question was "Banjar Kadim". This exhibited document mentions Khariff dated 10.09.86 but award was already passed on 01.09.86.
23. Ex. IP3W1/8 is certified copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year, 198586. There is no mention of land in question in this document and is therefore irrelevant for the decision of this reference.
24. Ex. IP3/W1/9 is Aksizra of Kh. No. 64/1 and is therefore also irrelevant for the decision of this reference. Same is the position of Ex. IP3/W1/10 which is certified copy of Khatoni for land in Kh. No. 64/1 and hence irrelevant for decision of this reference. LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 6/22
25. Reliance on khasra girdawari by Gaon Sabha for land in Kh. No. 64/1 appears to be due to confusion because there was another reference under Section 31(2) L. A. Act between Gaon Sabha and Shri Raj Singh where subject matter of land was in Kh. No. 64/1.
26. Certified copies of more khasra girdawaris are on record. It appears they are filed by Gaon Sabha and they are dated 08.12.2007. But these khasra girdawaris are neither mentioned in the proceedings nor are tendered by any one on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
27. As per certified copy of khasra girdawari for the year, 198283 land in Kh. No. 64/2 as well as 74 was under unauthorized possession and cultivation of IP No. 1 and 2 who had grown "Sarson" there.
28. But in certified copy of khasra girdawari for the year, 198384 land in Kh. No. 64/2 and 74 was uncultivated. Same is position of khasra girdawaris of year, 198485 for land in both the Khasra numbers which is uncultivated.
29. This is the evidence of Gaon Sabha in this reference petition.
30. On the other hand, on behalf of IP No. 1 and 2, Shri Raj Singh IP No. 1 entered in the witness box and deposed similar facts in his evidence by way of affidavit as deposed by him in his claim petition. He relied upon the following in support of his case: i. Ex. IP1W1/1: Certified copy of khasra girdawari / LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 7/22 form P4 for the year 198283 as per which IP No. 1 and 2 are shown to be in unauthorised possession of land in question. Crop in Kharif (13.09.82) is Dhancha. Crop in Rabi (14.02.83) is Sarson. ii. Ex. IP1W1/2: Certified copy of Form P5 for the year 1983 Kharif as per which, IP No. 1 and 2 are in unauthorized possession of land in question. iii. Ex. IP1W1/3: Certified copy of Form P5 for the year 1984 Rabi as per which, IP No. 1 and 2 are in unauthorized possession of land in question. iv. Ex. IP1W1/5: Certified copy of Form P5 for the year 1984 Kharif as per which, IP No. 1 and 2 are in unauthorized possession of land in question. v. Mark A: Photocopy of judgment passed by Reference Court in favour of this IP in LAC No. 87/93 where subject matter of land was in Kh. No. 64/1 (111) and was decided in favour of IP No. 1 Shri Raj Singh and against Gaon Sabha.
31. This witness was crossexamined by counsel for Gaon Sabha as well as counsel for IP No. 4.
32. In the crossexamination of IP No. 1 by Gaon Sabha, IP No. 1 stated that as per revenue records the land in question is in the name of Gaon Sabha. The witness could not tell the crop cultivated over land in question at the time of its possession by the Collector. The witness further stated that he did not file any application under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act for declaring LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 8/22 him the Bhumidar of land in question. He further stated that he did not file any application for recording name of IP No. 1 and 2 in revenue records for the land in question. The witness volunteered that his name is already shown in revenue records being in possession.
33. In the crossexamination of this witness by counsel for IP No. 4, it came on the record that this was not the only reference under Section 31(2) of the Act where he had claimed title over Gaon Sabha land and there was another reference earlier also for land in Kh. No. 64/1 (111) where there was title dispute between this IP and Gaon Sabha.
34. The witness also stated that he was aware that the land in question was Gaon Sabha land and since it was a vacant land, IP No. 1 and 2 started cultivating the same.
35. This witness deposed that he was a Tehsildar in Delhi Government but denied the suggestion that abusing his position he successfully forged revenue documents in his support.
36. The witness stated that he was doing government job as well as cultivating the agricultural land but he never took any leave for the purposes of tendering to his fields. He denied all the suggestions given by counsel for IP No. 4 which were contrary to the case set up by him.
37. IP No. 1 and 2 had taken permission to lead secondary evidence which was allowed by the learned predecessor of this Court LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 9/22 to prove application filed by IP No. 1 and 2 for declaring them bhumidar of the land in question.
38. Another retired Tehsildar from Mehrauli was examined as IPW2/W1. This witness was shown a photocopy of application allegedly written by IP No. 1 and 2 for recording of their possession and issuance of Form P5 pertaining to the land in question. The witness stated that he did not remember whether he had processed the application while in service and he could not say whether the signatures on application were appended by him.
39. This is all the evidence brought on record by IP No. 1 and 2.
40. So far as IP No. 4 is concerned, his LRs were substituted on record as IP No. 4 had died during the pendency of this reference petition.
41. In the evidence by way of affidavit, Shri Rohtash Singh, son of IP No. 4 deposed similar facts as were deposed by him in his claim petition. This witness exhibited following documents: i. Ex. IPW4/1 to 4: Special power of attorneys given by other LRs of Shri Khazan Singh in favour of Shri Rohtash Singh.
ii. Ex. IPW4/5: Sale deed dated 27.01.1961. iii. Ex. IPW4/6: Certified copy of khatoni. iv. Ex. IPW4/7: Order of the Reference Court which granted relief of enhanced compensation for some other land in favour of IP No. 4 in same village which LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 10/22 was acquired vide same award.
42. This witness was crossexamined by counsel for IP No. 1 and 2 only and was not crossexamined by counsel for Gaon Sabha.
43. The witness stated in the crossexamination that he does not know whether land in question was mutated in favour of his father or not. He stated that admittedly he has not filed any document to show possession over land in question. However, he stated that the possession of land in question was taken over by the Collector from his father.
44. Second witness examined by IP No. 4 was Shri Bijender Singh, Patwari from the office of SDM, Delhi Cantt who produced Ex. IP4W2/1 which is Khatoni for the year 199697.
45. The third witness was Shri Satyapal, Record Attendant from department of Delhi Archives who had brought certified copy of sale deed dated 31.01.1961.
46. The fourth witness examined on behalf of IP No. 4 was Shri Sanjeev Kumar, LDC from Record Room Session, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi who had produced the records of reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act filed by IP No. 4 which was LAC No. 888/93. Judgment dated 03.04.1995 was exhibited as IPW4/1. Copy of amended petition as well as unamended petition under Section 18 of LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 11/22 L.A. Act were exhibited as IPW4/2 and 3 respectively. Copy of application under Section 151 of CPC filed by IP No. 4 in that reference petition was exhibited as IPW4/4.
47. The last witness examined by IP No. 4 was Shri Vijender Singh, Patwari from the office of SDM, Delhi Cantt. who produced khatoni for the year 198485 which was exhibited as IP4W5/1.
48. This is the evidence of IP No. 4.
49. On behalf of DDA an application was filed along with copy of notification dated 19.08.2002. As per this notification, it is noted that Central Government's power under Sub Section 1 of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 has been vested in the Lt. Governor, Delhi vide notification dated 05.02.1972. It is further noted in that notification that the Lt. Governor, Delhi has placed the Gaon Sabha land of village Sahupura at the disposal of Delhi Development Authority for the purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Relying on said notification, this fourth claimant in this reference claimed entire compensation in favour of DDA.
50. Arguments were addressed by Ms. Veena Tanwar, learned Counsel for IP No. 1 and 2, Shri Vijay Kaushik, learned Counsel for IP No. 4 and Shri Arvind Gupta, learned Counsel for DDA. None came to address arguments on behalf of Gaon Sabha or LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 12/22 Ministry of Urban Affaris.
51. Claim of IP No. 1 & 2: Admittedly, IP No. 1 and 2 are not the recorded owners of the land in question. IP No. 1 and 2 knew that land in question belonged to Gaon Sabha. It is their case that the land in question was vacant so they started cultivating the same since "time immemorial". Simple dictionary meaning of "immemorial" is "ancient beyond memory". If they were cultivating the land from "time immemorial" it was expected of them to prove their possession for decades. The case of IP No. 1 and 2 is based on Section 84 and 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1957 which are as under: "84. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title
- (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the law for the time being in force, and
(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidar or Asami, or
(b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha as the case may be, and shall also be liable to pay damages.
(2) ...
85. Failure to file suit under Section 84 or to execute obtained thereunder - If a suit is not brought under Section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 13/22 executed within the period of limitation provided for failing of the suit or execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall
(i) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar, become a Bhumidar thereof;
(ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof;
(iii) in any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of [subsection (1) of Section 84] apply, become a Bhumidar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha." Provided ...
Provided ...
52. A reading of above noted provisions of law shows that IP No. 1 and 2 had to show their possession at least three years prior to taking over of the land in acquisition proceedings. As per award, date of possession is 01.09.86.
53. The question is whether IP No. 1 and 2 were in possession over land in question since 01.09.83 or not?
54. Gaon Sabha had filed its evidence in the nature of certified copies of khasra girdawaris as back as on 12.10.92. These khasra girdawaris were exhibited without any objection of any of IPs. As per Ex. IP3/W1/2 which is certified copy of khasra girdawari for the year 198384, land in Kh. No. 64/2 (35) was not under cultivation of any one. Neither any crops are shown nor name of any illegal occupant is shown in this khasra girdawari. LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 14/22
55. Similarly, in certified copies of khasra girdawaris for the year 198384 land in both the khasra nos. i.e. Kh. No. 64/2 and 74 was uncultivated.
56. Same is the position of khasra girdawaris of the year 198485 for land in both the khasra nos. which are subject matter of this reference.
57. If in the years 198384 and 198485 land was uncultivated without illegal occupation of IP No. 1 and 2, their claim for compensation fails.
58. In the face of such an adverse evidence brought on record by Gaon Sabha, what is the evidence of IP no. 1 and 2?
59. None of the exhibited documents of IP No. 1 and 2 are summoned from revenue department. There is nothing on record that the exhibited documents were not available in revenue records. Even otherwise, exhibited documents of IP No. 1 and 2 are not sufficient to grant relief in their favour.
60. Ex. IP1W1/1 is allegedly certified copy of khasra girdawari for the year, 198283 where "Dhancha" is shown in Khariff season. "Dhancha" is not a cultivated crop.
61. So at most, possession of these IPs is shown w.e.f. 14.02.83.
62. In Ex. IP1W1/2, which is allegedly certified copy of Form P5, list of changes, IP No. 1 & 2 were in possession in Khariff LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 15/22 season of the year 1983.
63. Similarly, Ex. IP1W1/3 and 5 (there is no Ex. IP1W1/4), are allegedly certified copies of Form P5, 'list of changes' for Rabi Season, 1984 and Khariff Season, 1984. If in Khariff 1983, IP No. 1 & 2 were shown in illegal occupation, there was no need to record changes in possession for Rabi 1984 and Khariff 1984.
64. Even if exhibited documents of IP No. 1 & 2 are taken on their face value, they show possession of IP No. 1 & 2 from 13.09.82 till 13.09.84 i.e. from Khariff 1982 to Khariff 1984. Therefore, they were not in uninterrupted possession for three years prior to possession by the Collector.
65. Even otherwise, comparison of certified copies of khasra girdawaris filed on record by Gaon Sabha with alleged exhibited documents of IP No. 1 & 2, shows contradictions.
66. As per certified copies of khasra girdawari of Gaon Sabha, land was uncultivated and free from illegal possession in the year 198384 and 198485. It is not possible that same revenue officials would show possession of IP No. 1 & 2 in Form P5 but will still leave khasra girdawaris blank without showing possession of IP No. 1 & 2.
67. These IPs knew before hand that in the certified copies of khasra girdawaris of Gaon Sabha, their possession was not shown over land in question but still no effort was made to rebut evidence of LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 16/22 Gaon Sabha.
68. Therefore, claim of IP No. 1 & 2 is liable to fail on this ground alone.
69. Moreover, not a single villager has come to depose in favour of IP No. 1 & 2 that they were in illegal possession of land in question.
70. There is no evidence of any electricity connection, borewell, structure, kotha, trees etc. in favour of IP No. 1 & 2 to show their possession over land in question.
71. IP No. 1, a government servant stated that he never took leave to attend to his fields. It is not believable that land in question was cultivated by him without even a single day's leave in that regard from his office. The reason for this stand is absence of any such evidence with IP No. 1 in his service record.
72. IP No. 1 even could not tell crops under cultivation when the possession of the land was taken over by Collector.
73. On the one hand, he said that he never needed to file an application to declare him as bhumidar because his possession was recorded and on the other hand he tried to prove by secondary evidence that he had filed an application for declaring him bhumidar of land in question before Tehsildar.
74. IP No. 1 filed photocopy of one such application on the record. Even office copy with original receiving by office of LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 17/22 Tehsildar was not filed on record. There was no diary no. on this application. The response of revenue department was that this application cannot be traced in absence of diary number. Non mentioning of diary number on application given to Tehsildar assumes importance because IP No. 1 is not an illiterate farmer but a "Tehsildar" himself. It cannot be expected from him that he would file applications to declare him the bhumidar without taking any diary no. / proper receipt of said application.
75. This IP No. 1 who was Tehsildar in revenue department had a responsibility to safeguard interests of Gaon Sabha land. Rather he claims that he was a rank encroacher himself over Gaon Sabha land.
76. Rule 3(1) of Control Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads as under: "3. General (1) Every Government servant shall at all times
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant."
77. Action of IP No. 1 is not becoming of a government servant.
78. Even to allege illegal occupation of Gaon Sabha land by a Tehsildar unabashedly is most reprehensible conduct. It appears LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 18/22 that by abusing his position as Tehsildar, IP No. 1 has got stray entries recorded in revenue records in his favour to hoodwink the authorities to usurp the compensation for land in question.
79. However, efforts of IP No. 1 & 2 are unsuccessful as IP No. 1 & 2 have failed to prove their possession for a period of three years prior to its taking over possession by the Collector.
80. Resultantly, claim of IP N. 1 & 2 fails.
81. Claim of IP No. 4: This IP was not a party when this reference was referred to this Court by the Collector. His name was added in this reference when his application for impleadment was allowed. This IP had purchased land in four khasra nos. which are 86 (416), 87/1 (43), 74 (49) and 64/2 (35) vide sale deed dated 27.01.61. This IP had filed a reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act for enhancement of compensation. Land which is subject matter of present reference was also subject matter of said reference i.e. LAC No. 888/93, Ex. IPW4/2. But IP No. 4 himself filed application which is Ex. IPW4/4, where he stated in para 1 and 2 as under: "1. That the above reference u/s 18 of the L.A. Act for enhanced the market value of the land for which the compensation has already paid to the petitioners and also for land bearing khasra no. 64/2 (305) and 74 (409) assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha.
2. That the petitioners in the above reference do not claim any right, title or interest in the land bearing khasra no. 64/2 and 74 and the same be deleted from the present LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 19/22 reference."
82. Therefore, now IP No. 4 is estopped from reagitating his claim over land in question. Moreover, neither IP No. 4 is the recorded owner nor in possession. Even a feeble effort was not made by IP No. 4 to show his possession over land in question. Therefore, claim of IP No. 4 also fails.
83. Claim of Gaon Sabha and DDA: Claim of DDA is on the basis of notification dated 19.08.02. By that date, the land was already acquired and vested in government. Counsel for DDA has relied upon Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which read as under: "Section 22. Nazul land: (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between that Government and the Authority, place at the disposal of the Authority all or any developed and undeveloped lands in Delhi vested in the Union (known and hereinafter referred as "nazul land" for the purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of this Act." (2) ...
(3) ...
84. A reading of above would show that only such land of Gaon Sabha vests in Central Government which ceases to be rural on the basis of its urbanization under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 20/22 Corporation Act, 1957. Here the land vested in Government in the year, 1986 when its possession was taken over. Notification under Section 507 of DMC Act came in the year 1994. But for urbanization, compensation would have gone to Gaon Sabha. However, due to coming into operation of Section 150 (3) (d) of DLR Act, successor of Gaon Sabha is Central Government.
85. In view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in LAA No.323/07 titled as Prem vs. Union of India, 'Central Government' in Section 150 of DLR Act refers to Ministry of Urban Development, through its Secretary. Therefore, neither the Gaon Sabha nor DDA would be entitled to receive the compensation but it would be payable to Ministry of Urban Development.
86. After urbanization under Section 507 of DMC Act, Gaon Sabha ceased to have right to contest all proceedings in its own name and is to be substituted by Ministry of Urban Development. DDA cannot be given compensation because as land was acquired before it could be vested in Union, and therefore could not be placed at the disposal of DDA anymore.
87. Relief: Issue no. 1 is answered holding that it is Central Government who would be entitled to receive the entire compensation.
88. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development with directions to file requisite LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 21/22 documents for release of compensation in favour of said Ministry. Copy of judgment be also sent to LAC (SW) for information. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on the day of 26th July, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No. 71/09/90 Page 22/22