Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 22 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1,
DISTRICT-NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
LAC No. 63B/2015
Award No. 19/2005-06/DC/NW
Village : Bawana
In the Matter of:
Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. .....Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Gaon Sabha, Bawana, Through BDO(NW)
BDO Office Complex,
Alipur, Delhi.
2. Sh. Khazan Singh,
S/o Sh. Milu
R/o VPO-Bawana, Delhi. ....Interested Person.
Award Announced on: 07.11.2005
Section 4 Notification dated: 27.01.2003
Section 6 Declaration dated: 23.01.2004
Date of Institution of Reference: 13.02.2012
Date of Assignment to this court: 22.04.2015
Date of Arguments: 13.01.2016
Date of Order: 22.01.2016
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 30-31 OF L. A. ACT.
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.1/241. Vide award No. 19/2005-06/DC/NW, land of village Bawana, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for public purpose i.e. "Development of Narela Bawana Phase-II Under P.D.D.". These were the proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of land measuring 3184 bighas 17 biswas in Village Bawana, Delhi. The land involved in the present reference petition is bearing Kh. No. 92/12 (2-08) B. The LAC assessed the total compensation of the land as Rs.1,61,27,90,407/- alongwith interest. The matter was referred to the Court under section 30-31 of L. A. Act as there was a dispute among the interested persons of the acquired land. The notification U/s 4 of L. A. Act was issued on 27.01.2003 and declaration U/s 6 of L. A. Act was issued on 23.01.2004. It was further pleaded in award that notices U/s 9 and 10 of the L. A. Act were issued to the interested persons and in response to notices issued, the claims were filed by the interested persons.
2. Notices of the reference petition were issued to the IPs as per memorandum sent by the LAC.
3. Claim petition was filed on behalf of IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha wherein it was stated that claimant is the recorded owner of the suit land situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. It was further stated that IP No. 1 was recorded owner of land in question and at the time of taking the possession of the land in question by the acquisition authority, the IP no. 1 was in possession of the land in question and possession was taken over from the IP No. 1 and LAC-63B/2015 Page No.2/24 therefore, none other than IP No. 1 has no valid or legal right and titled in the land in question. It was further stated that no other person except IP No. 1 has any right, title or interest in the amount of compensation in respect of land in question. It was prayed that claim petition of IP No. 1 may be allowed and compenstion amount of the land in question may be released in favour of IP No. 1.
4. IP No. 2 Sh. Khazan Singh also filed separate claim stating that aforesaid land had been in physical and cultivatory possession of the IP No. 2 since prior to the commencement of the DLR Act, 1954 and in fact at that point of time, this land was lying vacant, uncultivated and was Bunjar and the present IP with the help of his family members made this land fit for cultivation after removing the wild grass and also spent a lot of money to make it fit for cultivation and capable to produce crop. It was also averred in claim that in fact the total land under the possession of IP No. 2 was 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No. 92/12 and vide present award, only the land measuring 2 bigha 2 biswas was acquired and khasra No. 92/18 and 92/23 was also adjoining to the present acquired land. It was further stated that these two khasra numbers were acquired vide Award No. 8/2001-02 and present IP had claimed compensation in respect of said land also vide LAC case No. 24/01 which was decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide its award/judgment dated 8.02.2008 and the entire compensation was released to the IP No. 2 and against the said judgment, no appeal was ever filed by IP No. 1. It LAC-63B/2015 Page No.3/24 was stated that since present IP was in cultivatory possession, therefore, case U/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954 was filed before the Revenue Assistant seeking declaration of bhoomidari rights on the basis of continuous possession for more than three years. It was also pleaded in claim that possession of IP No. 2 was recorded into khasra girdawari for the year 1978-79, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1981. It was also stated that no ejectment proceedings either under section 84 or under section 86-A of DLR Act, 1954 were ever initiated by the gaon sabha prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings and in the absence of initiation of ejectment proceedings either U/s 84 or Section 86-A of DLR Act, 1954, the rights of gaon sabha extinguished in view of provisions of Section 67 (d) of DLR Act, 1954 after expiry of limitation period to initiate ejectment proceedings and those rights of bhoomidari were vested into IP No. 2 being in continuous possession U/s 85 of DLR Act for which necessary petition had already been filed which could not be decided due to acquisition of the land in the meanwhile. It was averred that IP No. 2 is entitled to the entire compensation to the exclusion of the IP No. 1 as IP No. 2 lost its entire rights qua the land in question being remained out of the possession for more than three years. It was prayed that entire compensation in respect of the land in question may be released to the present IP No. 2.
5. IP No. 2 has also filed reply to the claim filed by IP No. 1 wherein preliminary objections were raised stating that claim filed by IP No. 1 LAC-63B/2015 Page No.4/24 in respect of land in question is not maintainable as they were neither the bhoomidar nor in possession in respect of land in question at the time of acquisition of land by concerned department and it was IP No. 2 who was in cultivatory possession of land in question prior to acquisition of land and he had been in possession since 1954 i.e. commencement of DLR Act. On merits, it was stated that mere revenue entries does not confer any right upon the person in whose name the revenue record has been maintained. It was also stated that Gaon Sabha has lost its right as bhoomidar qua the land in question in view of the provisions of Section 67 (d) of the DLR Act, 1954. The other contents of claim petition of Gaon Sabha were denied and it was prayed that statement of claim of the IP No. 1/Gaon Sabha may be dismissed.
6. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 27.02.2013:-
1) Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation, if any, to what amount?
2) Relief.
7. In evidence, IP No. 1 was granted several opportunities to produce witnesses and led evidence, however witnesses were not produced despite opportunity, hence evidence of IP No. 1 was closed.
8. On the other hand, Sh. Khazan Singh was examined as IP2W1 who tendered his affidavit and relied upon several documents and was also cross-examined. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, LDC, Record Room(Session) LAC-63B/2015 Page No.5/24 Tis Hazari, Delhi was examined as IP2W2 and brought the summoned record of case LAC No. 24/01 titled as UOI vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana, Delhi decided on 08.02.2008.
9. Later on application was moved on behalf of Gaon Sabha IP No. 1 to recall the order dated 13.07.2015 whereby evidence of IP No. 1 was closed. This court upon hearing the arguments on same and considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, allowed the said application and granted one opportunity to IP No. 1 to conclude the evidence vide order dated 17.08.2015.
10.Thereafter, IP1W1 Sh. Praveen Bhardwaj, Record Room In-Charge and IP1W2 Sh. Suresh Kumar, Kanoongo were produced and evidence was closed, however application U/o 18 Rule 17 CPC was filed on behalf IP No. 2 to recall the order dated 30.10.2015 and this court allowed the said application in the interest of justice and granted one opportunity to cross-examine the witness of Gram Sabha vide order dated 16.12.2015 who were cross-examined on 04.01.2016 and matter was posted for final arguments.
11.Now the details of IPs in present reference are given below in tabulation form for better elucidation of facts:-
Sr. No. IP No. Basis 1. 1 Recorded owner 2. 2 Physical and cultivatory possession.
12.I have gone through the material available on record and have LAC-63B/2015 Page No.6/24 heard the arguments addressed by counsel for respective IPs. My findings in the present reference petition are given below:-
13.Issue No. 1. Which of the IPs is entitled to the compensation and to what amount?:- The onus to prove this issue was on the IPs. Both the IPs have led their respective evidence.
14.So far as claim of of IP No. 1 is concerned, it is averred in pleading that claimant is the recorded owner of the land falling in Khasra No. 92/2(2-08) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. It has further come on record that IP No. 1 was recorded owner of land in question and at the time of taking the possession of the land in question by the acquisition authority, the IP no. 1 was in possession of the land in question and possession was taken over from the IP No. 1.
15.On the other hand, the IP No. 2 has averred that land had been in physical and cultivatory possession of the IP No. 2 since prior to the commencement of the DLR Act, 1954 and in fact at that point of time, this land was lying vacant, uncultivated and was Bunjar and the present IP with the help of his family members made this land fit for cultivation after removing the wild grass and also spent a lot of money to make it fit for cultivation and capable to produce crop.
16.In evidence of Gaon Sabha/ IP No. 1, Sh. Praveen Bhardwaj, Record Room In-charge was examined as IP1W1 who brought the khasra girdawaries for the year 1999-2000 to 2006-07 in respect of land in question i.e. Khasra No. 92/12 of Village Bawana which was Ex.
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.7/24IP1W1/1 (colly). In his cross-examination, he stated that he had never been Halqa Patwari of Village Bawana from 1992-2007 and he had never seen the land in dispute on the spot. He further deposed that he is not aware about the correctness of entries in the Khasra girdawaries as regards the possession and that which party was in possession in the land in question before its acquisition. Sh. Suresh Kumar, Kanoongo, LAC North was examined as IP1W2 and proved the possession report in respect of land in question which was Ex. IP1W1/2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not participated in the possession proceedings conducted at the time of acquisition of land. He also deposed that he is not aware as to which party was in possession of the land at the time of recording possession proceedings meaning thereby testimony of the witnesses of IP No. 1 coupled with document do not in any manner suggest that Gaon Sabha was in actual possession of the said land. Now what need to be seen is whether IP No. 2 has been able to prove his possession on said land till acquisition as claimed.
17.For this, as far as evidence led by IP No. 2 is concerned, IP No. 2 Sh. Khazan Singh has produced himself in witness box in support of his case and during cross-examination, he has admitted that Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner of land as per revenue record. However, he further voluntarily stated that he had been in possession. He further stated that he was alone in cultivatory possession of the land in question. He denied the suggestion put to LAC-63B/2015 Page No.8/24 him to the effect that girdawari relied upon by him are forged and fabricated or that in the Form P-5 crops has not been mentioned. IP No. 2 Khazan Singh in his affidavit has deposed that land in question had been in physical and cultivatory possession of the IP No. 2 since prior to the commencement of the DLR Act, 1954 and in fact at that point of time, this land was lying vacant, uncultivated and was Bunjar and the present IP No. 2 with the help of his family members made this land fit for cultivation after removing the wild grass and also spent a lot of money to make it fit for cultivation and capable to produce crop. He further deposed that in fact the total land under the possession of IP No. 2 was 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No. 92/12 and vide present award, only the land measuring 2 bigha 2 biswas was acquired and khasra No. 92/18 and 92/23 was also adjoining to the present acquired land. He further stated that these two khasra numbers were acquired vide Award No. 8/2001-02 and present IP had claimed compensation in respect of said land also vide LAC case No. 24/01 which was decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide its award/judgment dated 8.02.2008 and the entire compensation was released to the IP No. 2 and against the said judgment, no appeal was ever filed by IP No. 1. He further deposed in affidavit that present IP remained in cultivatory possession of the land in question till it was finally acquired vide above noted award and sine present IP was in cultivatory possession, therefore, case U/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954 was filed before the Revenue Assistant seeking LAC-63B/2015 Page No.9/24 declaration of bhoomidari rights on the basis of continuous possession for more than three years. He further deposed that possession of IP No. 2 was recorded into khasra girdawari for the year 1978-79, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1981 and form P-5 for kharif, 1979, Kharif 1980, Rabi 1980, Rabi 1981, kharif 1981, Rabi 1982 were also filed in showing physical possession of IP No. 2 on crops sown by him in respect of land in question. IP No. 2 also deposed in affidavit that since water for irrigation was also taken from Haryana Canal, therefore, irrigation department also issued khasra girdawari for kharif 1986 showing possession of IP No. 2 and in the year 1983- 84 by an Administrative Order, physical possession over the land belonging to Gaon Sabha was stopped to be recorded and thereafter, in the year 1989 by amending the Delhi Land Rules, the Rule 63 was amended thereby removing the requirement on the part of Halqa Patwari to record adverse possession over the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. IP no. 2 also stated in affidavit that amending of Rules were challenged in writ petition in the case titled as Balbir Singh Vs. ADM, 57(1995) DLT DB page 547 whereby the amendment in the rules was struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the said judgment was further challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6255/1955 in case titled as ADM (Revenue) Delhi Administration Vs. Shri Ram which was decided on 05.05.2000 thereby dismissing the appeal of the revenue department. Through the amending rules were struck down but still LAC-63B/2015 Page No.10/24 the department did not record the possession of land of IP No. 2 over the land in question even after deciding the case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. From bare perusal of same, the claim of IP No. 2 is very explicit. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by Gaon Sabha. Rather the cross-examination is either not specific or there is no cross-examination on material points meaning thereby parts of the affidavit have been admitted by Gaon Sabha/IP No. 1. The blunder is very much explicit when IP No. 1 has given suggestion to this witness that Gopi Ram was in possession of this land meaning thereby Gaon Sabha has admitted that IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha is not in possession. Various khasra girdawaries produced on record suggest that name of Khazan Singh have been coming on record since long and suddenly thereafter, it is upon IP No. 1 to explain as to how entries were changed and why in the last column, the name of IP No. 1 was deleted in the khasra girdawaries of the year 2000 onwards when it was present earlier. The presumption of correctness of revenue record is attached and explanation was to be given by IP no. 1 for deletion of name of IP No.
2. The other witness produced in evidence of IP no. 2 is Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, LDC Record Room (Session), Tis Hazari who brought the record /file having LAC No. 24/01 titled as UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha decided on 08.02.2008 and proved the record of said case. He was also cross-examined but nothing material has come in his cross- examination. The counsel for IP No. 2 has correctly relied upon the LAC-63B/2015 Page No.11/24 judgment Ex. IP2W1/1 passed on 08.02.2008 in the adjoining land wherein facts and evidence are almost same. Gaon Sabha Bawana has not challenged the same and findings therein cannot be ignored. Resjudicata is applicable as far as observation is concerned as facts and evidence are same. More so when application filed by IP No. 2 U/s 85 of DLR Act was pertaining to land involved in that reference/award and land involved in the present award is also there. The application U/s 85 DLR Act had been filed on 11.08.1986 i.e. much before acquisition of land. This case is different from other case decided by this Court because issue in present case is covered between same parties by the judgment supra for the reasons mentioned ahead. So on one hand in view of above observations and conclusion of the evidence led by both the parties, the Gaon Sabha has not been able to prove his possession over the land in question. On the other hand, only the possession is established in favour of IP No. 2 in view of the evidence led in the present case by IP No. 2.
18. Once question of possession is decided, now comes the question of ownership/bhumidari rights. It is not disputed that if there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348 (DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question. Rather, it has been LAC-63B/2015 Page No.12/24 held in judgment titled Govt. of NCT Delhi Vs. Poonam Gupta 2005 (125) DLT 423 that "rights of bhumidari as matured are to be seen from the date when petition under Section 85 of DLR Act was filed. If person had acquired those rights on the said date, mere delay in deciding the rights does not debar the said person from the benefits which a declared bhumidar is entitled." But here is a catch. From the perusal of file, it is clear that this Court has now to decide regarding Bhumidari rights and revenue authorities could not decide so.
19.Besides his own testimony, IP No. 2 in support of his claim to be in possession and to show that he has been bhumidar of said land, has produced judgment Ex. IP2W1/1 dated 08.02.2008 passed by Ms. Poonam Bamba, the then Ld. ADJ titled UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha pertaining to award No. 8/2001-02 alongwith certified copies of entire evidence Ex. IP2W1/2 and copies of khasra girdawaries of that case Ex. IP2W1/3 and also placed copies of khasra girdawaries (in Urdu) Ex. IP2W1/11. He has also produced certified list of changes pertaining to year 1979 to 1983 Ex. IP2W1/6 in which name of Khazan Singh is mentioned. He has also relied upon Ex. IP2W1/7 (Colly.) which is certified copy of irrigation department showing his name. The main thrust is upon Ex. IP2W1/3 containing 6 pages pertaining to year 1978 to 1984 with respect to crop of Rabi and Kharif in these years. The record has not been produced by department but order of destruction dated 18.12.1991 Ex. IP2W1/9 LAC-63B/2015 Page No.13/24 and report dated 16.09.2002 Ex. IP2W1/10 is on the record vide which khasra girdawaries and Roznamcha pertaining to village Bawana for the years have been destroyed. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by Gaon Sabha to these documents. The record of girdawaries filed by IP No. 2 is required to be gone through. The name of IP No. 2 as well as description of the crop is duly mentioned in the same which includes Jwar, Bajra, Chana, Wheat, vegetables, Tinda etc. In column No. 21, IP No. 2 is shown to be Najayaj Kabiz i.e. adverse possession and thus possession and cultivation is duly reflected. For the purposes of interpretation of these documents, one can go through the relevant rules applicable in this regard.
20.It is a matter of record that Sub-Rule (3) of the Rule 63 Delhi Land Revenue Rules, provided that if a person other than one recorded in columns 4 and 5 is found to be in actual occupation of the land, his name is to be recorded in remarks column. Vide amendment in Delhi Land Revenue Rules known as Delhi Land Revenue Rules (1 st Amendment) 1989 made notification dated 30.11.89, new sub-rule (5) to Rule 63 was inserted ; in view of the same, rule 63 was not to apply to the lands classified in classes (a) to (f) of the said sub-rule. Thus, recording of possession in the revenue record (i.e. khasra girdawaries and form P-5) of a person in occupation of the agricultural land without the consent of a bhumidar, was dis- continued in and around in the year 1984-85 vide an administrative order and subsequently vide above said amendment.
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.14/2421.It may be pertinent to mention here that the said notification was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in Balbir Singh Vs. UOI, 57 (1995) DLT (DB) observing that the possession of the land is of utmost importance as regards the agricultural land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the quashing of the said notification, in its judgment dated 05.05.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 6255 of 1995 in the case of ADM (Revenue) Delhi Administration Vs. Shri Siri Ram.
22.The fact that IP No. 2 had even filed an application for declaration of bhumidari rights U/s 85 of DLRA before the court of Revenue Assistant on 11.08.86 with respect to land in question alongwith other land decided vide judgment dated 28.07.2006 being in continuous possession of said land for more than 3 years immediately persuading 1986 is proved by Ex. IP2W1/4. It is seen that IP No. 2 vide his said application dated 11.08.86 Ex. IP2W1/4 had made the similar submissions as made in his claim before this Court viz. that he was in continuous cultivatory possession of land in dispute since 1978 without the consent of Gaon Sabha. But the Halka Patwari had not been entering this fact from 1984 to 1986 that no steps were taken by the Gaon Sabha for IP No. 2's ejectment from the said land within the limitation period; that in view of the same, he should be declared bhumidhar of said land.
23. In view of the above evidence on record, I have no hesitation in referring to the copy of SDM/RA Kanjhwala's letter dated 21.07.1992 Ex. IP2W1/8 addressed to Executive Engineer (Flood Control LAC-63B/2015 Page No.15/24 Department). The relevant portion of same reads as under:-
"Sir, This is to inform you that case No. 258/RA/86 titled as Kazan Singh V/s. G. S. Bawana under Section 85 DLR Act w. r. t. Khasra No. 92/12, 92/18 & 92/23 is pending in this case. As the matter is subjudice, no action disturbing the possession of the plaintiff to the suit should be taken. In case, any clarification is required, you are advised to contact the undersigned.
Yours Faithfully Sd/-
(DHARMENDRA SHARMA) S.D.M./REVENUE ASSTT. (KANJHAWLA) Delhi."
24. From the above evidence, it is established that IP No. 2 was in possession of said land since 1978 till the land was acquired by the Government. It is also established that not only that IP No. 2 was in possession of said land, but had also taken steps for his declaration as bhumidhar. Even the said proceedings kept pending before Revenue Assistant since 1986 till 2001-2002. Admittedly, the Gaon Sabha did not taken any steps for ejectment of IP No. 2 from the said land.
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.16/2425. What needs to be examined now is whether, such continued possession of IP No. 2 entitles him to compensation. It would be pertinent to refer here to provisions as contained in Sections 67, 84, 85 and 86 A of DLRA, in this regard. Said provisions read as under:-
"67. Extinction of the Interest of a Bhumidhar:-
The interest of a Bhumidhar in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished-
(a) ....
(b) ....
(c) ....
(d) When he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation."
....
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 law for the law for the time being in force, and-
(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhar or Asami or
(b) ....
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.17/24Shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidhar, Asami or ...
85. Failure to file suit under Section 84 or to execute decree obtained thereunder - If a suit is not brought under Section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for filing 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 Bhumidhar, become a Bhumidhar thereof...."
86A. Ejectment by revenue assistant of persons occupying land without title - Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 84, 85 and 86, the Revenue Assistant also may, on receiving information or on his own motion, eject any person who is liable to be ejected from any land on a suit of the Gaon Sabha under any of those sections, after following such procedure as may be prescribed."
26. IP No. 2 was in possession of the said land otherwise than in LAC-63B/2015 Page No.18/24 accordance with law and was therefore, liable to be ejected from the said land, in terms of Section 84 and 86 A DLRA. As per section 84 DLRA bhumidhar/Gaon Sabha could have filed a suit for ejection of IP No. 2; as per section 86 A, Revenue Assistant on receiving information in this regard or on his own motion, also could have ejected IP No. 2 who was in possession of the said land without any authority. But neither a suit for ejection was filed by Gaon Sabha/Bhumidhar nor were any steps for ejection of IP No. 2 from the said land were taken by the Revenue Asstt.
27. It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court in Smt. Renu Gupta and Anr. Vs. Government of NCT and Anr. 2004 II AD (Delhi) 463, held that:-
"8. Section 84 of the DLR Act provides that a person taking or retaining the possession of the land other than in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of a Bhumidar, Assami or a Gram Sabha, as the case may be. In terms of Section 85 of said Act, if the suit is not brought under Section 84 (1) or a decree obtained in any suit is not executed within the period of limitation, provided for the filing of suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession (was) where the land forms LAC-63B/2015 Page No.19/24 part of the holding of a Bhumidar, become a Bhumidar thereafter. The time period prescribed is in Schedule 1 Sl. No. 19 (iii) as three years from 1st July following the date of occupation."
28. In view of the findings made in paras supra, the fact that IP No. 2 remained in uninterrupted cultivatory possession of said land, since 1977-78 till acquisition of said land and IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha failed to take steps for ejectment of Sh. Khazan Singh, IP No. 2 from said land U/s 84 DLRA, within a period of limitation i.e. three years, IP No. 2 became Bhumidhar of the said land in terms of Section 85 of DLRA, in view of the settled position of law, as discussed above.
29. I am also supported in my view by the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court in Behari & Others Vs. Union of India etc. 47 (1992) DLT 300 (DB) and in Balbir Singh Vs. ADM (Revenue) and Others 57 (1995) DLT (DB).
In Behari's case in para 1 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court observed that:
".... We are not inclined to agree with the reason given by learned ADJ. He does concede in the judgment that in the khasra girdawari, Behari has been shown to be in cultivatory possession of the aforesaid khasra number after 1962-63. However, this presumption of possession, according to the LAC-63B/2015 Page No.20/24 learned Addl. District Judge, stood rebutted because Behari seemed to have irrigated those fields from a well situated in Khasra No. 1119/716 which did not belong to him. We are of the view that the reason given by the learned Addl. District Judge is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of Bhoomidari rights of Behari in those fields. He was shown to be in possession of those fields in the khasra Girdawari. No entry contrary to such possession emerged from any other documents like Khatauni and, therefore the conclusion drawn by learned Addl. District Judge does not appear to be sufficient. In fact, khasra girdawari are always accepted in proof of possession of a certain person. We are, therefore of the view that Behari had also acquired Bumidari rights of the aforesaid three khasra numbers measuring 4 bighas 13 biswas."
30. In Balbir Singh's case, the Hon'ble High Court, while dealing with the validity of notification dated 30.11.89 known as the Delhi Land Revenue Rules (1st Amendment) 89, by virtue of which the existing rules 49, 63, 65, 67 and also Form P of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules were amended had observed that:
"Land Reforms Act deals with numerous matters vis LAC-63B/2015 Page No.21/24 a vis the rights and liabilities of Bhumidars and Asamis. It is complete Code in itself concering their rights and liabilities. It also contains rules of succession of the rights of a Bhumidar or an Asami. The act also declares certain transactions made by or on behalf of a Bhumidar or an Asami to be void. Section 84 of the Act provides for ejectment of persons, occupying land without title. A person taking or retaining possession of land, otherwise in accordance with the provisions of law, where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami, without consent of such Bhumidar or Asami.... is liable for ejectment on filing of a suit by a Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha. Section 85 of the Land Reforms Act has the effect of bestowing certain rights, automatically on such a person, who retains possession, without title, in case a suit is not brought within the prescribed period of limitation. Where land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar the person automatically acquires rights as a Bhumidar, and where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of Gaon Sabha, such a person acquires right of an Asami.LAC-63B/2015 Page No.22/24
5. Section 67 of the Land Reforms Act categorises the eventualities under which the interest of a Bhumidar in his holding shall stand extinguished.....
6. Reading of the various provisions of the Land Reforms Act makes it abundantly clear that as regards the agriculture land, situated in Delhi, to which provisions of the Land Reforms Act are applicable, possession of land is of an utmost importance, which in its turn, not only confers valuable rights but also imposes numerous obligations.
7. ......
8. ...... Rights of the parties are to be decided on the basis of their actual possession for which reliance is required to be placed on the entries in revenue records."
31. Thus in view of the above findings and law laid down, the IP No. 2 is entitled for 100% of the compensation. This issue is decided accordingly, in favour of IP No. 2 and against the IP No. 1.
32. Relief:- In view of the above finding, the reference is decided. IP No. 2 had become bhumidar of the said land by virtue of being in continued cultivatory possession of same since 1978 till its acquisition by the Government, IP No. 2 only is entitled to receive LAC-63B/2015 Page No.23/24 the entire compensation. I hereby hold that IP No. 1 is not entitled to any compensation. I also hold that IP No. 2 is entitled to receive the entire compensation alongwith interest as due. Payment be called with up to date interest in the name of entitled IPs. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IP in above terms as per above findings. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC. District Nazir will distribute the amount as per above observation to the entitled I.P. after receiving the amount from concerned bank. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (AJAY GOEL)
on 22.01.2016 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi.
LAC-63B/2015 Page No.24/24