Delhi District Court
Chandan Sawhney & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC NO : 25/1/06
Chandan Sawhney & Ors
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr
...Respondents
ORDER
1 By this order, I shall dispose of the application dt.11.09.2002 filed by the applicants namely, Sh.Swarup Singh and others U/o 1 Rule 10 r/w/sec. 151 CPC to implead them as petitioners or respondents for determining the real issue in favour of right persons. 2 In the said application, it is stated that the reference petition U/sec. 18 of the LA Act is pending for answering it in the reference court in respect of the land about 27 bighas out of 63 bighas 1 biswas bearing Kh. No.4098/1678 situate in the revenue estate of village Tughalkabad, New Delhi which was acquired vide award No.1/1997-
98. The petitioners, in this reference, have no right/ title in the aforesaid land on the following grounds :
i S/Sh. Charta, Bharta, Sri Ram, sons of Moti Ram Bhule son of Dalel, Sohan, Shahmal, sons of Dhaula, Sri Chand s/o Jhandu, Net Ram S/o Budhi, Nirmal Singh, Sunehri, Sunpat @ sampat, Bahal sons of Sh.Dharam Singh and Rati Ram son of Jagmal, all r/o village Madanpur Khaddar, Delhi owned agricultural land bearing Kh.Nos. 830, 829, 2853/810, 828, 809, 808, 807, 1319, 1026, 832, 831, 2023/956, 4087/910, 954 & 1377 and shares in Gair Mumkin Pahar in the revenue estate of village Tughlakabad, Delhi.
ii All the persons mentioned above sold their entire agricultural land including their shares in Gair-Mumkin Pahar to the applicant Nos. 1 to 3, 11 and the predecessors of applicant Nos. 4 to 17 vide registered sale deed dated 04.10.1969 and hence the vendees became the absolute owners of their agricultural land and shares in gair Mumkin Pahar.
iii The land bearing Kh. No. 4098/1678 (63-1) was gair mumkin Pahar and owned by Gaon Sabha, on 04.10.1969 the date of sale deed. The mutation could not be recorded of this land in the names of vendees as it was owned by Gaon Sabha at that time.
iv The applicants had come to know in 3rd week of June, 1996 that vendors/their legal heirs had fraudulently got recorded mutation in their names of land in question and also claimed compensation while the applicants were/are the absolute owners of the land in dispute and are entitled for the compensation of entire land measuring 63 bighas 1 biswas including the land which is subject matter of this reference petition.
v The applicants filed claims dt. 26.06.1996 before the Land Acquisition Collector without receiving any notices u/s 9- 10 of the LA Act.
vi After filing claims, no notices were received from the Land Acquisition Collector.
vii The applicants came to know in the last week of December 1996 from reliable sources that some payment had been made to the petitioners on 18.09.1996 by the LAC in the absence and without any notice to the applicants. viii The applicants filed civil writ no. 282/1997 in the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order of LAC dt. 18.09.1996 and prayed :
(a) To set aside the order dt. 18.09.1996.
(b) To direct the LAC either to make payment to the petitioners/ applicants or to refer the matter to the court u/sec 30-31 of the Act.
(c) To direct the respondents/ petitioners in this Reference to deposit the amount of compensation in the office of the LAC.
ix The said writ petition no. 282/97 of the applicants was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 19.09.2001 and also held that the petitioners are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, as may be permissible in law, to prove their title to the land on the basis of sale deed stated to have been executed in their favour by the original owners.
x The petitioners/ applicants filed LPA No.78/2002 against the order dt. 19.09.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid writ petition, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is pending and irrespective of the decision/fate of the said LPA, this reference court is competent to decide the issue on title in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in civil writ no.282/97.
xi The petitioners in this reference petition and respondents in the civil writ no.282/97 filed some copies of documents in the Hon'ble High Court i.e. copies of GPA in favour of Sh.K.D. Sahani executed by alleged original owners and assignment deeds executed by Sh.K.D.Sahani, GPA in favour of petitioners. Assignment deeds are executed in respect of actionable claims only and only registration fee is paid. On the basis of assignment deeds, one can claim only compensation and have no concern with the immovable property. The title in immovable property can be transferred only on the basis of sale deed defined in section 54 of the transfer of the property Act and full registration and corporation fee is paid and not on the basis of assignment deeds. Even, accoding to section 54 of transfer of property Act, a contract for sale of itself, does not create any interest in, or charge on, such property. Actionable claims and their transfer are defined in chapter VIII (Section 130-137) of transfer property Act in which transfer of immovable property is not covered.
The mutations recorded on the basis of assignment deeds in the names of the petitioners is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction and is null and void and cannot be acted upon for the purposes of title in the land in dispute and hence entire action of the revenue authority to record the mutation in the names of the petitioners deserves to be set aside being illegal and void. Two points are more to prove illegality of these documents; i) all these assignment deeds were executed after March, 1996 and it is mentioned in these assignment deeds that the possession of the said land have not been taken over by the Govt. so far under section 16 of the LA Act while according to the Award No.1/1997-98, the possession was taken by the Govt on 04.07.1988 and ii) according to Delhi Land Restriction (Transfer) Act 1972, the land cannot be transferred and mutation can not be recorded after notification U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. In this case mutation was recorded of the land when the possession was taken by the Govt. and land was notified U/sec. 4 & 6 of the LA Act, neither permission obtained nor permission could be granted by revenue authority.
xii The alleged original owners through their GPA executed assignment deeds only to deprive the rights of the applicants as they had/have very weak case.
3 It is further stated that the applicants are only entitled for the amount of compensation and no other persons including the petitioners and if the applicants are not impleaded parties in this reference petition, and irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the applicants.
4 The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have filed reply to it raising objections on the grounds that the applicants do not have any locus standi to file the present application because the applicants had never been the owner or in possession of the land in dispute. This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application U/order 1 Rule 10 CPC since the reference has limited/restricted jurisdiction U/sec. 21 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in the case of Balram Chander Vs State of U.P. AIR 1995 (SC) 1552 held that the reference court cannot go behind the reference and its duty and power are confined vis-a-vis the provisions contained u/s 11, 18 & 20 to 23 and it would not traverse beyond its power. The facts mentioned and alleged in the application have been dealt with and considered by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the writ petition no.282/97 filed by the present applicants. The writ petition was dismissed on 19.09.2001. Furthermore, Hon'ble High Court observed in its judgment that the land in dispute i.e. Kh.No.4098/1678 does not figure in the sale deed dt. 03.10.1969 reliance upon which has been placed by the applicants for claiming the compensation shown that the above said land was not sold by the original owners to the applicants and furthermore, the court held that LAC rightly and legally rejected the application of the present applicants to be forwarded to the ADJ as the applicants do not appear to be the owner of the land acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. Being not satisfied, the applicants filed LPA No.78/2002 against the order dt. 19.09.2001 and the said LPA was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dt. 07.04.2003. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the present application deserves to be dismissed outrightly. It is further stated that the applicants are not the interested persons in the award and their application for payment was straightway rejected by the LAC vide his order dt. 18.09.1996 and the order of the LAC remained unchanged till the second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. On merits, it is stated that the present petitioners are the legal and rightful owners of the land bearing kh. no.4098/1678 situate in village Tughlakabad, Delhi . The sale deed dt. 04.10.1969 relied upon by the applicants does not include the kh. no. in question. The other averments made in the application have been vehemently denied except the record.
5 The petitioners except petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have also filed reply to this application and raised almost the same objections which have been raised by the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
6 The applicants have also filed rejoinder to the replies of the petitioners wherein the averments made in the application have been re-affirmed and the objections taken by the petitioners in their replies have been denied.
7 I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the written arguments filed by the applicants and the petitioners.
8 A perusal of the record reveals that the reference U/sec. 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award No.1/1997-98 dt. 05.12.1997 in respect of the land bearing Kh.No. 4098/1678 (63-1) situate in revenue estate of village Tughlakabad, Delhi was filed by Sh.Chandan Shawhney and 11 other claimants before the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) on 18.12.1997 vide diary no. SDO/LAC(K)/2071 which was referred by the LAC on 10.03.1998. The present application dt.11.09.2002 was filed in the reference court on 16.09.2002. The contents of the said application as well as the replies to the said application have already been discussed above which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. I have perused the judgment dt. 19.09.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ No.282/97 wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has discussed and observed the facts and materials placed on record and held that the land bearing kh. no.4098/1678 is not mentioned in the sale deed dt. 04.10.1969 relied upon by the petitioners - applicants herein and dismissed the said writ petition. The judgment dt. 19.09.2001 in writ petition was also confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in the LPA No.78/2002.
9 The counsel for the applicants has argued that this reference court is the competent court as the petitioners have already withdrawn amount of compensation and nothing pending before the LAC with regard to the land in question. Section 18 covers both title and enhancement while section 31 covers only title. Thus, in this case, there was no question to refer the matter u/s 30-31. The counsel for the applicants, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs UOI & Ors 2004 VII AD (SC) 215, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
''The Collector is not authorised to decide the finally conflicting rights of the person interested in the amount of compensation, he is primarily concerned with acquisition of land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is proved, to apportion the amount of compensation between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or whose claim, he has information, whether or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation:
the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a reference U/sec. 18 or sec. 30 of the Act.'' In the case reported as Chander & Ors Vs Mauji & Ors AIR 1989 Delhi 97, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
''Whether the proceedings initiated on a referene U/s 18 or U/s 30, the dispute to be settled is as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable or apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. The conflicting claim to the compensation money is the dispute which has been referred either U/s 18 or section 30 of the Act. The list between the parties is identical whether the proceedings are U/s 18 or U/s 30 and adjudication on the reference U/s 18 stands on the same footing as an adjudication on a reference U/s 30 or for the matter on a deposit U/s 31(2) of the Act. The dispute could be settled either on a reference U/s 18 or on a reference U/s 30 to enable the collector to disburse the compensation to the rightful owner.'' In the case reported as Babu Lal Mehtar & Ors Vs Faqira Mehtar & Ors AIR 1985 Patna 249, it was held by the Hon'ble Patna High Court that :
''By virtue of provision of Section 53 the provision of U/o 1 Rule 10 apply to the proceedings before the court on a reference U/s 18 or section 30 and the court has power at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party to add a person as a party to the proceedings if it appears to the court to be just to do so and more particularly if the court finds that presence of such a person may be necessary in order to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the case.''
10 The counsel for the applicants has further argued that it is settled law for shamlat land that only land owners have shares in it. They can transfer their shares along with their own land or separately, before partition and after partition. On this point, a reliance has been made by the counsel for the applicants in the case reported in Chaman Lal Vs Amlok Singh 1980 PLJ 26 decided on 22.12.1979 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that :
''Menghna Ram's case (Supra) vendors owned 1/5th share in adna Malkiyat Rights. To these adna Malkiyat were appurtenant a large area of Shamilat, which was banjar at the time of sale. The vendor sold his share together with all rights appurtenant thereto. Subsequently, the vendee in the revenue papers was shown as owner without any qualification that he is Malik Qabaza. In these circumstances, it was held that in Mengha Ram's case that the vendee shall be deemed to have purchased shamilat rights along with the appurtenant rights purchased by him'' In Ajit Singh Vs Durga Dass & Ors 1983, PLJ 588, it was held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that :
''in the sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 04.05.1951 under which the plaintiff purchased the land along with the share in Shamlat and therefore, he was entitled to remain in peaceful possession of the suit land which is a part of shamlat patti. According to the Ld. Counsel, the lower appellant court has wrongly relied upon the provision of Rule 7, 19 of the Punjab land records manual. The mere fact that in the list of co-sharers in the shamlat Ex.D-1, the name of Ajit Singh was not mentioned, does not mean that he was not entitled to the share in the shamlat when in the sale deed Ex.P-2 it was so stated specifically.
After hearing the Ld.Counsel for the appellants, I find no force in the contention raised on his behalf. It has been specifically stated in the sale deed Ex.P-2 that the plaintiff purchased the land along with the share in the shamlat. The mere fact that no mutation as such was sanctioned as required under Rule 7.19 of the Punjab Land Records Manual did not deprive the plaintiff of his right or title under the sale deed. Clause (3) of Rule 7.19 provides ' where a mutation of inheritance, sale, gift or mortgage covers a share of the shamlat, the shamlat khata should be entered in the mutation so that the mutation of the co- sharers in the shamlat may be correctly entered in the jama bandi.' Thus, a duty is cast upon the revenue authorities to record the mutation of sale accordingly in accordance with the terms of the sale deed. If for any reason, it is not so recorded then the vendee who has purchased the land along with share in the shamlat could not be deprived of that right.''
11 Further, the counsel for the applicants, in support of his arguments, has further relied upon the following judgments i.e. 1980 PLJ 292 Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Jhao Lal Vs Kishan Lal and Ors; Punjab Law Reporter 331 titled in Shiv Charan Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Narike Tehsil Malerkotla Distt. Sangpur ; Revenue Judgments No.6 titled in Sirdar Nuran Khan Vs Nawab Imam Baksh Khan ; Punjab Law Report 447 case no.642/1900 titled as Ahmedyar Khan Vs Sultan and Ors ; Revenue Judgments No.7 and page 17 titled Gurmukh Singh Vs Prem Singh and Ors. ; Revenue Judgment no.1 titled Chunni Lal Vs Imdad Ali and Ors ; Revenue Judgment no.7 Bhola & Ors Vs Khushal Singh & Anr. ; Revenue Judgment no.1 Baksha and ors Vs Dasaundhi & Ors.
12 The counsel for the applicants has also argued that the land in question is the shamlat land along with other land from time in memorial and land owners had shares according to their land. There were three THOK in this village i.e. THOK GUJRAN, THOK SHEKHAN and THOK SARKAR who owned land and share in Shamlat Land. 13 Whereas, the counsel for the petitioners have stated in their arguments that this court is a notified court under section 3 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act and hence court has limited jurisdiction as defined under the Act. The court has only jurisdiction to decide the quantum of compensation and not diversify the main request made by the Collector or the court cannot increase the scope of the reference. The law was laid down way back by the proxy counsel. In 1930 in the case titled Prem Nath Mullik Bahadur Vs Secretary of State AIR 1930 PC
64. This law remained inforce till date, never over ruled and the Apex Court time to time further endorse the above said law as in case Balram Chander Vs State of UP AIR 1995 SC 1552 where the Apex Court defined the power of reference court. Further in 2003, the Hon'ble Supreme court of India re-affirmed the above law in case titled Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr reported as 111 (2003) SLT 278. The petitioners have further placed their reliance on authorities i.e. Mehu Puri Dalal Vs UOI & Ors. N (2004) SLT 182 ; Ahad Brothers Vs State of M.P.& Anr VII (2004) SLT 89 ; M/s Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd. Vs Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 199 ; Dr. G.H.Grant Vs State of Bihar AIR 1986 SC 237 ; Sharda Devi Vs State of Bihar 2003 AIR SCW 425. Section 18 (1) literally meaning is that the persons who were the part of the proceedings of the acquisition. In the present petition, the petitioners are the persons interested and they have filed the reference u/s 18 of the Act. The applicants Swarup Singh and others have no right, title or interest to become the party in the above said reference. Shamlat land itself has no meaning till it does not specify with the kh. No. of that land. Shamlat land is there in every village but it keeps its kh. no., therefore, without kh. no. no land exits so every land whether Shamlat or not has its own kh. No. in the revenue record. 14 As per the reasons stated in this application, replies filed by the petitioners to this application, written arguments filed by the applicants & the petitioners and also the judgments relied upon by the applicants & the petitioners in support of their claims, it is gathered that the present reference u/s 18 of the LA Act pertains to the land bearing kh. no.4098/1678 (63-1) situate in village Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dt. 19.09.2001 in the civil writ petition no.282/97 has held that there is no reference to the land in kh. no.4098/1678 in the sale deed and there is no infirmity in the order dt. 18.09.1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation to the respondent nos. 2 to 15 (the petitioners herein) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dt. 07.04.2003 in LPA no.78/2002. With due respect to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have to be obeyed and followed by the parties to the writ petition and LPA, the LAC and the reference court in respect of land bearing kh. no.4098/1678. The applicants have alleged that the land in question is the shamlat land along with other land and S/Sh.Charta, Bharta, Sri Ram sons of Moti Ram, Bhule son of Dalel, Sohan, Shahmal sons of Dhaula, Sri Chand S/o Jhandu, Net Ram S/o Budhi, Nirmal Singh, Sunehri, Sanpat @ Sampat, Bahal sons of Sh.Dharam Singh and Ratti Ram son of Jagmal all r/o village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi had owned agricultural land bearing kh. Nos. 830, 829, 2853/810, 828, 809, 808, 807, 1319, 1026, 832, 831, 2023/956, 4087/910, 954 & 1377 and shares in Shamlat land in this village. They sold their entire agricultural land along with their share in Shamlat Land to the applicants/ predecessor vide registered sale deed dt. 04.10.1969. It is further alleged by the applicants that the land which is subject matter of this reference petition is the share of the vendors out of Shamlat land of this village. Hence, the applicants, as alleged by them, are the absolute owners of this land and are entitled for the entire compensation/ enhanced compensation and the applicants are original owners of the Shamlat land including shares in Gair Mumkin Pahar which can be proved at the time of evidence. Further, as per the assignment deeds for the year 1994 &1996, it has been specifically stated that the possession of the land was with the executors while as per the award no. 1/1997-98 dt. 05.12.1997 in the present reference, the possession was taken by the govt. on 04.07.1988. Therefore, once the possession was taken by the Govt. on 04.07.1988, then how the agreement to sell and assignment deeds were executed in the year 1994 -1996. As per the provisions u/s 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the executor of agreement to sell must be in possession at the time of execution of agreement to sell but in this case, the possession was with the Govt. prior to execution of the agreement to sell and assignment deeds. Even otherwise, some assignment deeds were filed by the petitioners without any knowledge of the court and without any endorsement which have been mentioned in the order dt. 10.02.2005 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court which directed the counsel for the petitioners that they should clarify this thing but till date no clarification has been given by them.
15 This reference court is notified under the LA Act. Section 18 of the LA Act reads as under :
''Reference to court - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court whether his objection be to the measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
provided that every such application shall be made.
(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of collector's award.
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of ; the notice from the Collector under section 12, Sub Section (2) or within six months from the date of the collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.'' In the case of Mehar Rushi Dalal (Supra) which is the judgment dt. 05.05.2004 subsequent to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid civil writ petition 282/1997 and LPA 78/2002, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''the collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a reference u/s 18 or section 30 of the Act''
16 Further, a reliance can be had upon the judgment reported in the case of Indraj Vs Sham Lal AIR 1993 Punjab & Haryana 95. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
''11. ----- Proceedings before the Court on a reference made by the Collector U/sec. 30 are of a special nature. The court can take cognizance of the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation of the acquired land, only on a reference and the enquiry is confined to a dispute between certain parties. The court cannot enlarge its scope by impleading others as parties. The persons who had not appeared before the Collector and staked any claim to compensation for the land in dispute, and have not raised any grievance as to the apportionment of compensation in the award of the Collector, cannot come forward to join issue before the Court adjudicating on the reference.
The words underlined indicate that the learned Judge was of the opinion that the person who had not pressed for his claim before the Collector could not ask the reference Court to implead him as a party to the reference. While making these observations, the learned Judge did not appreciate that no period is prescribed for getting a reference made U/sec. 30 of the Act. A person who has not appeared in acquisition proceedings before the Collector can raise a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation or relating to the person to whom it is payable and apply to the Collector for a reference U/sec. 30 for determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award or which may have developed upon him since the award and there is no limitation for making such an application, meaning thereby that the Collector can make more than one reference relating to apportionment to the Court. If the Collector can make more than one reference, it will be unjust to refuse permission to a party to join as a party to the reference. He may succeed in establishing his right to apportionment or may place the matter before the Court which may enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the question of apportionment of compensation. The learned Judge also did not invite his attention to O.I, R.10 (2) of the Code, which provision is obviously applicable to the proceedings before the reference court. These provisions enable the reference court to add a person as a party if his presence is considered necessary or proper for the proper adjudication of the dispute before it. Moreover, as observed in the earlier part of the judgment, the reference U/sec. 30 of the Act is really in the nature of interpleader suit and if that is so, if a person prima facie establishes that he has a right which requires examination, it will be unjust not to implead him as a party to the reference. The view taken by the learned Judge cannot be accepted to be correct since it does not advance the cause of justice and put an end to multiplicity of proceedings. The same is accordingly overruled.''
17 Though the present reference is not u/s 30-31 of the LA Act but the facts & circumstances of the present reference including the rights of the applicants in respect of the entire land are covered in the aforesaid judgment and even otherwise, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the civil writ petition no.282/97 also directed that the petitioners - herein the applicants are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law to prove their title to the land on the basis of sale deed stated to have been executed in their favour by the original owners. Section 18 of the LA Act also covers the issue of title to a land and the reference court is empowered and has the jurisdiction under the provisions of the LA Act to adjudicate upon the title to the land. Once the issue has arisen that the entire agricultural land along with their shares in Shamlat land which included the subject matter was sold by Sh.Charta, Bharta and others to the applicants/ predecessors and further as alleged the vendors/their legal heirs had fraudulently got recorded mutation in their names of land in question, therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India & the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it has now become necessary at this stage as to how the applicants have acquired their right, title or interest in the entire agricultural land including their shares in Gair Mumkin Pahar/Shamlat Land and also as to how there were no khasra numbers of shamlat land that may include the land in question which may only be decided after leading evidence. Thus, the applicants are allowed to be impleaded as parties in this reference. This application is accordingly disposed of.
Issues have not been framed in this reference. The present application was filed before the Ld. Predecessor Court on 16.09.2002 which could have been disposed of within a period of reasonable time. Even otherwise, this reference, after evidence of the claimants, could also be answered till the creation of this reference court i.e. in the year of 2006. However, it is directed that the parties to this reference shall complete their entire evidence within a period of six months after framing of the issues in this reference.
Now, to come up for filing of the amended memo of parties and for further proceedings on 13.03.2007.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 07.02.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC NO. 25/1/06
07.02.2007
Present - None
Vide separate order dictated and announced in the open court, the application dt.11.09.2002 filed by the applicants namely, Sh.Swarup Singh and Others U/o 1 Rule 10 r/w/sec. 151 CPC to implead them as petitioners or respondents for determining the real issue in favour of right persons is accordingly disposed of.
Now, to come up for filing of the amended memo of parties and for further proceedings on 13.03.2007.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/07.02.2007