Delhi District Court
Cnr No. Dlst010000031995 vs Ram Singh (Since Deceased) on 31 August, 2018
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY GULATI
LAC No.36/2016 GULATI Date:
2018.09.04
15:44:01 +0530
IN THE COURT OF DR. AJAY GULATI, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.36/2016
Filing No.680/1995
CNR No. DLST010000031995
Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi
...................... Petitioner
VERSUS
1.Ram Singh (since deceased) Through his legal heirs: (vide order dated 09.03.2004)
(a) Smt. Bas Kaur (widow)
(b) Ved Ram (son)
(c) Vijinder Singh (son)
(d) Rajinder Kumar (son)
(e) Surinder Singh (son) All:
R/o H. No.78, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi
2. Attar Singh S/o Sh. Het Ram
3. Mam Chand S/o Sh. Het Ram
4. Smt. Vidya W/o Sh. Sukh Ram
5. Mangtu
6. Guru Charan UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 S/o Sh. Sukh Ram
7. Smt. Geeta
8. Smt. Savita D/o Sh. Sukh Ram
9. Karan Singh
10. Mam Chand
11. Nawal Singh
12. Budh Ram S/o Sh.Ram Pershad
13. Ganga Devi W/o Sh. Ram Pershad
14. Smt. Har Chandi
15. Smt. Ram Chandi D/o Sh. Ram Pershad
16. Jaswant (deceased) S/o Sh. Jamuna Through his legal heirs:
(a) Smt. Ram Pali (widow)
(b) Dinesh (son)
Both:
R/o H. No.101, Sarai Kale Khan,
New Delhi
(c) Smt. Om Wati (daughter)
W/o Sh. Mahesh
(d) Smt. Yogeshwari (daughter)
W/o Sh. Maha Raj Singh
Both:
R/o Village Jharera, Delhi
(e) Smt. Mamta (daughter)
W/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o Village Ulhewas, Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana
(f) Smt. Maina (daughter) W/o Sh. Vijay R/o Village Maksoodpur Dairy, Delhi UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 21 LAC No.36/2016
17. Sh. Lal Chand
18. Sh. Bhagmal S/o Sh. Jamuna
19. Smt. Mamnao W/o Sh. Jamuna
20. Smt. Shiela & Smt. Jasrathi D/o Sh.Jamuna All R/o Village Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi
21. Khilka (deseased) S/o Sh. Yadu Through his legal heirs:
(a) Smt. Basanti (widow)
(b) Baljeet Singh (predeceased son) Through his legal heirs:
(i) SatishKumar (son) (ii) Sunil Kumar (son) (iii) Kumari Meera (daughter) (iv) Smt. Jagwati (widow) (c) Sarjeet Singh (son) (d) Ranjeet Singh (son) (e) Bal Ram (son) (f) Ajeet Singh (son) All:
R/o H. No.100, Village Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi
22. Hari Ram (deceased) S/o Sh. Munshi Through his legal heirs:
(a) Jagat Ram (son) (b) Chahat Ram (son) (c) Jag Ram (son) (d) Nand Ram (son) (e) Jagbir (son) (f) Phireawati (daughter) UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 All: R/o H. No.T76, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi 23. Smt. Kela W/o Sh. Hari Chand 24. Dharambir & Karambir 25. Ranbir All: S/o Sh. Hari Chand 26. Smt. Nathu 27. Smt. Batten Both: D/o Sh. Hari Chand 28. Anant Ram & Sant Ram Both: S/o Sh. Shammu All: R/o Village Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi 29. Meda S/o Sh. Moola 30. Noor Mohamad S/o Sh. Aledia 31. Bhure S/o Sh. Chajju 32. Mawasi S/o Sh. Chajju All: R/o Village Kilokari, Delhi
...................Interested Person Reference received on : 19.04.1995 Date of institution : 19.04.1995 Date on which order was reserved : 31.08.2018 Date of Award : 31.08.2018 UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 AWARD (on reference petition under Section 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
1. The present reference under Section 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with memorandum of interested persons and compensation amount of Rs.6,92,300.18 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to Award No.14/199293 of Village Kilokari, in respect of acquisition of land vide preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 23.06.1989. Thereafter, notices of the reference were issued to all the concerned parties. The reference was forwarded for ascertaining the compensation amongst the interested person, in respect of Khasra Nos.608, 611 & 612.
2. On service of summons, Interested Persons and disputants put in their appearance on different dates. As per the memorandum forwarded by the LAC, there were a total of 32 Interested Persons.
3. During the course of proceedings, vide order dated 13.01.2003, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Jagrathi, (both mentioned as IP No.20 in the memo forwarded by the LAC) relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers namely Jaswant, Lal Chand and Bhagmal i.e. IP No.16 to IP No.18. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.03.2004, legal heirs of IP No.1 i.e. Ram Singh; IP No.16 i.e. Jaswant Singh; IP No.21 i.e. UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 Khilka; and IP No.22 i.e. Hari Ram were impleaded in the present reference. Subsequent thereto, on 25.04.2007, application moved on behalf of the legal heirs of IP No.2 i.e. Attar Singh was allowed and they were also brought on record.
4. Vide order dated 20.11.2007, application moved on behalf of legal heirs of Sarjit Singh, one of the legal heirs of IP No.21 namely Khilka was allowed and the legal heirs of IP No.21 were brought on record. Similarly, on 06.05.2009, legal heirs of IP No.10 i.e. Mam Chand were brought on record. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.08.2017, legal heirs of IP No.22(a) i.e. Jagat Ram; IP No.23 i.e. Kela Devi; IP No.24 i.e. Dharamveer; and IP No.28 i.e. Ant Ram @ Anant Ram & Sant Ram were brought on record.
CLAIMS OF THE INTERESTED PERSONS On behalf of the legal heirs of IP No.21 i.e. Khilka
5. Legal heirs of IP No.21 Khilka submitted in their claim that IP No.21 was the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 in Village Kilokari since the same was inherited by him from his ancestors. Prayer was made for grant of compensation to them being the legal heirs of IP No.21 Khilka in respect of all the 3 khasra numbers. They further submitted that they had not assigned or parted with their rights in the compensation amount UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 to anyone.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that no other IP had filed a formal claim in respect of their entitlement to the compensation amount with regard to the acquired land. However, IP No.1, IP No.2, IP No.3, IP No.9, IP No.12, IP No.16b, IP No.17, IP No.18, IP No.21, and IP No.28(a) led their evidence in respect of their claims over the acquired land.
ISSUES
7. On 25.04.2007, following issues were framed for determination by this court:
1. What is the right, share and interest of the respective IP's?
2. Relief EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the IP No.1 I.e Ram Singh
8. In order to prove his claim, Sunder Kumar, legal heir of IP No.1 examined himself as IP1W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit A2. He relied on the following documents:
1. Original death certificate of IP No.1 as Ex.IP1W1/1; and UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 21 LAC No.36/2016
2. Photocopy of Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 198485 as MarkA/IP3W1.
9. IP1W1 in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit deposed that he along with other legal heirs ie. Ved Ram Vijender, and Rajender Kumar were entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the share of IP No.1 with regard to the land mentioned in Khasra Girdawari i.e. Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari since other legal heirs of IP No.1 i.e. his daughters namely Ram Phali, Smt. Ved Wati, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Bijendri have already surrendered their claims in their favour i.e. in favour of witness Ved Ram, Vijender, Rajender Kumar and Sunder Singh. He further deposed that he along with other legal heirs were in cultivatory possession of the acquired land as nonoccupancy tenant. Despite opportunity having been given, this witness was not cross examined on behalf of IP No.9 to 15 On behalf of IP No.2 i.e. Attar Singh
10. Sh. Desraj, one of the legal heir of IP No.2 led evidence on behalf of IP No.2 as IP2W1 by way of affidavit A8 and relied on the following documents:
1. Photocopy of death certificate of IP No.2 Attar Singh which was also exhibited Ex.X/IP3W1;UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 21 LAC No.36/2016
2. Photocopy of death certificate of Late Het Ram which was already exhibited as Ex.Y/IP3W1; and
3. Photocopy of driving licence of witness Desraj as Ex.PW2W1/1 (OSR).
11. IP2W1 in his examinationinchief deposed that his father inherited ancestral properties in Village Kilokari; that Khasra Girdawari of the year 198488 duly reflects the names of his ancestors; that his sisters have relinquished their share in favour of the male members of the family including IP2W1; that they were in cultivatory possession of the acquired land as non occupancy tenant; and that he along with other legal heirs of IP No.2 were entitled to receive the compensation in respect of Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari since IP No.4, 7 & 8 had already relinquished their right in favour of IP No.5 & 6.
12. IP No.9 to 15, despite opportunity, did not cross examine the witness. However, during the cross examination on behalf of IP No.22 to 28, IP2W1 admitted that IP No.22 to 29 have half share in the entire acquired land bearing Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari.
On behalf of IP No.3 i.e. Het Ram
13. Sh. Mam Chand i.e. one of the legal heir of IP No.3 Het UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 Ram, examined himself as IP3W1 and relied on the following documents:
1. Original death certificate of Attar Singh as Ex.X/IP3W1;
2. Original death certificate of Hetu @ Het Ram s/o Mehru as Ex.Y/IP3W1; and
3. Photocopy of Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 198488 as Mark A/IP3W1.
IP3W1 in his affidavit in evidence, deposed that he along with other legal heirs of IP No.3 were entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the share of IP No.3 with regard to the land mentioned in Khasra Girdawari i.e. Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari.
14. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, IP3W1 submitted that Custodian was the owner of the land in question prior to the acquisition of the land by the Government; that the Custodian department had handed over the possession of the land in question for agriculture purpose which his father's ancestors had been using for agriculture since 1935; and that they did not have any document to show that possession was given to them by the Custodian department but voluntarily submitted that they were having khasra girdawari. He denied the suggestion that his ancestors were in illegal possession of the UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 acquired land since the same belonged to the Custodian department. He further submitted that at the time of acquisition, they used to sow wheat and other crops over that land.
On behalf of IP No.9 i.e. Karan Singh
15. IP No.9 Sh. Karan Singh examined himself as IP9W1 to prove his claims over khasra No.608, 611 & 612 by way of affidavit A9. IP9W1 exhibited his voter ID card as Ex.IP9W1/1 (OSR).
16. In his examinationinchief, he deposed that he along with IP No.10 to 15 were entitled to receive compensation with respect to the share of his father Late Ram Parshad with regard to Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 in Village Kilokari; that IP No.11 i.e. his brother Naval Singh (unmarried) & IP No.13 i.e. his mother had already died; that names of his ancestors have been shown in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 198485; and that he along with other male members of the family were in cultivatory possession of the acquired land as nonoccupancy tenant.
17. This witness in his cross examination on behalf of IP No.22 to 29, admitted that IP No.22 to 29 have half share in the acquired land of Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari.
On behalf of IP No.12 i.e.Budh Ram
18. IP No.12 in his examinationinchief deposed that he along UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 with IP No.9, IP No.10, IP No.14 & IP No.15 were entitled to receive the compensation in respect of share of his father Late Sh. Ram Parshad in respect of land bearing Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 as per Khasra Girdawari MarkA/IP3W1; and that his mother IP No.13 and brother IP No.11 had already expired. In his cross examination he also admitted that IP No.22 to 29 were entitled to receive half share of the compensation in respect of the acquired land.
On behalf of IP No.16 i.e. Jaswant
19. Sh. Dinesh Kumar, legal heir of IP No.16 examined himself as IP16W1 by way of affidavit A7 and relied on the following documents:
1. Death certificate of IP No.16 Jaswant Singh as Ex.IP17W1/1 and
2. His voter ID card as Ex.IP16bW1/1 (OSR).
20. In his evidence by way of affidavit, he deposed that in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 198488, names of his ancestors have been mentioned which includes the name of his grandfather Late Sh. Jamna Das, himself along with other legal heirs of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh, IP No.2, IP No.3, IP No.4 to 9, IP No.1, and IP No.17 to 20; that he along with other male members of the family were in cultivatory possession as non UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 occupancy tenant of the acquired land; that IP No.19 & 20 had already relinquished their shares in the compensation amount in favour of IP No.16 to 18; that IP No.16(a), 16(c), 16(d), 16(e) & 16(f) have also relinquished their share in his favour; and claimed entitlement to receive the compensation amount as per share of Late Sh. Jamna Das in respect of land bearing Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari.
21. This witness also in his cross examination, admitted that IP No.22 to 29 were entitled to half share in the compensation amount.
On behalf of IP No.17 & 18 i.e. Lal Chand & Bhag Mal, respectively
22. IP No.17 & IP No.18 led their evidence by way of affidavits A5 & A6, respectively, by examining themselves as IP17W1 & IP18W1. IP No.17 relied on death certificate of his brother i.e. IP No.16 as Ex.IP17W1/1 and IP No.18 relied on the death certificate of his father Late Jaswant Singh as Ex.IP17W1/1. Examinationinchief of IP No.17 and IP No.18 was on the same lines as examinationinchief of IP No.16(b) Dinesh who appeared as IP16W1. They also, during their cross examination, admitted that IP No.22 to 29 were entitled to half share in the compensation amount.
UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 21 LAC No.36/2016On behalf of IP No.21 i.e. Khilka
23. Sh. Ranjit Singh, legal heir of IP No 21, in order to prove his claim examined himself as IP21W1 and Sh. Gopal Singh as IP21W2.
24. IP21W1 led his evidence by way of affidavit A3 and relied on the death certificate of Khilka i.e. IP No.21 as Ex.IP21W1/1 and photocopy of Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 198488 as MarkA/IP3W1. In his examinationinchief, IP21W1 deposed that Khasra Girdwari reflects the name of his father Khilka IP No.21 as the cultivator; that he along with the other legal heirs of IP No.21 were in cultivatory possession as nonoccupancy tenant of the acquired land; and that they were entitled to receive compensation in respect of Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 of Village Kilokari.
25. IP21W2 Gopal was one of the legal heirs of Sh. Sarjeet Singh who himself was the legal heir of IP No.21 Khilka. This witness relied on the death certificate of his father i.e. IP No.21(c) Sarjeet Singh as Ex.IP21W2/1. Special Power of Attorney dated 02.08.2007 executed by other legal heirs of Late Sh. Sarjeet Singh in his (Witness Gopal) favour was exhibited as Ex.IP21W2/2. Examinationinchief of IP21W2 was on the lines of examinationinchief of IP21W1. Both these witnesses were not cross examined despite opportunity having been given to the UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 Learned counsel for IP No.9 to 15. However, in cross examination on behalf of IP No.22 to 28, this witness admitted the claim of IP No.22 to 28.
On behalf of IP No.28 I.e. Ant Ram & Sant Ram
26. Sh. Amar Singh, one of the legal heir of IP No.28 Ant Ram @ Anant Ram, examined himself as IP28(a)W/1 by way of affidavit Ex.IP28(a)W1/1. He relied on the Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 199293 as MarkA.
27. In his examinationinchief, he deposed that he was deposing on behalf of himself as well as legal heirs of IP No.22, 24 to 28 and legal heirs of Late Sh. Ant Ram and Sh. Sant Ram; that they i.e. he and IP No.22 to 28 were in possession of the land in question to the extent of ½ share; and IP No.1 to 21 or their successors were entitled to the compensation amount to the extent of ½ share; and that except IP No.1 to 28 no other person is entitled to receive the compensation since they were in cultivatory possession of the acquired land i.e. Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 for the last 50 years. It was also asserted that Government took the possession of the acquired land from them. The witness was not cross examined.
28. It is pertinent to mention here that IP No.10 to 15 have adopted the evidence led by IP No.9.
UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 21 LAC No.36/2016No other witness was examined.
FINDINGS
29. The Court gave a patient hearing to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, and has also minutely gone through the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced. After giving due consideration to all of the above, the issuewise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 What is the right, share and interest of the respective IP's?
30. Though onus to prove this issue was not fixed on any one of the parties but the responsibility was cast on all the IPs to prove their respective claim over the acquired land.
31. Except IP No.21 no other IP has filed a formal claim over the acquired land bearing Khasra No.609, 611 & 612. However, other IPs i.e. IP No.1 to IP No.3, IP No.9, IP No.12, IP No.16 to 18, IP No.21 and IP No.28 led evidence to prove their entitlement on the basis of cultivatory possession as non occupancy tenants. They all relied on the Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 198488 to show that their ancestors were the cultivators of the acquired land. However, none of the UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 IPs who led evidence asserted ownership rights over the acquired land.
32. Perusal of Khasra Girdawari of Village Kilokari for the year 198488 reveals that in the column of cultivator in respect of Khasra No.608, 611 & 612, one Sh. Samman etc. has been shown as cultivator. Witnesses on behalf of IP No.1, IP No.2, IP No.3, IP No.9, IP No.12, IP No.16 to 18. IP No.21 & IP No.28 in their respective examinationinchief deposed that in the Khasra Girdawari, names of their ancestors have been shown as cutlivators of the acquired land.
33. As per Khasra Girdawari Samman etc.; Munshi etc.; Ant Ram, Sant Ram both S/o Shammu; and Hari Ram, Hari Chand both S/o Munshi have been shown as cultivators of the land bearing Khasra No.608 whereas in respect of Khasra No.611 & 612, Samman etc. have been shown as cultivators of the same. So far as owners of the land in question are concerned, Ida etc. have been mentioned as owners of the land. It is pertinent to mention here that in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1992 96, with regard to the cultivators of the land, reference of Khata No.291 and 292 of Jamabandi, and with regard to owners, reference of Khewat No.44 of Jamabandi has been made. Perusal of Jamabandi of Village Kilokari for the year 195051 (which was filed by the Learned counsel for the UOI during the course of final submissions), specifically Khewat No.44 in respect of UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 Khasra No.608, 611 & 612 reveals that Meda S/o Mula, Noor Mohammad S/o Aludia, Bhure S/o Chhajjan have been recorded as the owners of the land in question whereas Samman, Ram Parsad, Jamuna, Khilka, Munshi and Nihalu have been recorded as the cultivators of the land bearing Khasra No.608 & 611 whereas in respect of Khasra No.612 Samman, Ram Parsad, Jamuna, Khilka have been shown as the cultivators.
34. As per memorandum of parties, Sh. Samman was the father of IP No.1 Ram Singh. IP No.9 to 15 have been claiming their right on the basis of being the legal heirs of Sh. Ram Parsad; IP No.16 to 20 have based their claim on the ground of being the legal heirs of Sh. Jamuna; IP No.21 himself has been mentioned as cultivator of the land in question whereas legal heirs of IP No.22 Hari Ram have been claiming their entitlement on the basis of being the legal heirs of Munshi; and IP No.23 to 27 have been claiming their right being the legal heirs of Hari Chand who has been shown as cultivator of the land bearing Khasra No.608 in the Khasra Girdawari. IP No.28 (Ant Ram and Sant Ram) have been shown as cultivators of land bearing Khasra No.608 in the Khasra Girdawari. However, there is no document on record to substantiate the claim of IP No.2 & IP No.3, and IP No.4 to 8 over the land in question being the legal heirs of Het Ram and Sukhram, respectively.
35. IP No.22 to 28 in their evidence submitted that IP No.1 to UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 28 are entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the acquired land i.e. ½ of the compensation to IP No.1 to 21 and other ½ share to IP No.22 to 28 since they were in cultivatory possession of the same.
36. IP No.29 to 32 did not lead any evidence. However, during cross examination on behalf of IP No.22 to 28, it has been admitted by IPs (who led their evidence) that IP No.22 to 28 have half share in the compensation amount in respect of Khasra No.608, 611 and 612.
37. Neither any claim was filed nor any evidence has been led on behalf of the IP No.29 to 32 since they were proceeded against exparte. As per naksha muntezmin forwarded by the LAC along with the memorandum of parties, IP No.29 to 30 i.e. Meda (IP No.29); Noor Mohd.(IP No.30); Bhure (IP No.31); and Mawasi (IP No.32) have been shown as owners of the acquired land i.e. IP No.29 to IP No.31 as owners of the Khasra No.612 (718) and IP No.32 as owner of the Khasra No.s 608 (39) & 611 (38).
38. In view of the above discussion, in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.608, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.9 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide order dated 13.01.2003), IP No.21 and IP No.22 to 28 are held entitled to receive the UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 compensation; in respect of land bearing Khasra No.611, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.9 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide order dated 13.01.2003), IP No.21 and IP No.22 to 27 are held entitled to receive the compensation; and with regard to land bearing Khasra No.612, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.12 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide order dated 13.01.2003) and IP No.21 are held entitled to receive the compensation.
RELIEF
39. In view of the above discussions, in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.608, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.9 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide order dated 13.01.2003), IP No.21 and IP No.22 to 28 are held entitled to receive the compensation; in respect of land bearing Khasra No.611, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.9 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 21 LAC No.36/2016 order dated 13.01.2003), IP No.21 and IP No.22 to 27 are held entitled to receive the compensation; and with regard to land bearing Khasra No.612, legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.12 to 15, IP No.16 to 19 (since IP No.20 namely Sheela and Jagrathi had already relinquished their right in the compensation amount in favour of their brothers vide order dated 13.01.2003) and IP No.21 are held entitled to receive the compensation, as per their share. The reference is answered accordingly.
40. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY GULATI)
COURT ON 31.08.2018 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
UOI vs. Ram Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 21