Delhi District Court
Lac No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union ... vs . Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 1/17 on 24 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 2A/10/09
New No. 260/16
Union of India
versus
1. Sh. Rajiv Bhayana
S/o Late Sh. Gian Chand Bhayana,
R/o E-10, Bali Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. (Objector)
2. Sh. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Hukam Chand
R/o V.P.O. Mundka,
Delhi-110041 (Owner).
3. Smt. Bala
D/o Sh. Daya Nand
W/o Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o V.P.O. Mundka near
Rana Public School,
New Delhi-110041 (Owner)
4. Sh. Raghbir Singh
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o V.P.O. Mundka near
Rana Public School,
New Delhi-110041 (Owner).
.....Interested Parties
Award No. : 02/DC(W)/2008-09
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 01.01.2009
Date of institution of the case : 04.11.2009
Date of reserving of judgment : 18.05.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.05.2017
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 1/17
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) referred reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect to Award no. 02/DC(W)/2008-2009 measuring 1 Bigha and 1 Biswa in Khasra No. 1024 shown at Sl. No. 31, 32 & 68 in the Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.15,30,754/- for the purpose of construction of depot, staf quarters and TSS of Inderlok-Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot). The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons.
3. As per order dated 04.11.2009, the cheque No. 682920 dated 26.10.2009 of Rs.15,30,754/- was directed to be deposited in SBI, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal year to year basis.
4. IP No. 1 filed claim. It is stated that the claimant is the owner and in possession of commercial built up property measuring 1 bigha and 1 - 1/6 biswas situated in the Lal Dora of village Abadi of village Mundka. It is further stated that the claimant purchased the same from Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Sh.Chatter Singh on the basis of GPA, Will, Receipt all dated 11.05.1994, who in turn purchased the same vide registered sale deed, Will, Receipt from Smt. Prabha wife of late Capt. Gaj Raj on 22.07.1986. It is stated that immediately after the LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 2/17 purchase of said land, the petitioner constructed rooms and boundary wall, which have been evaluated by the Govt. Valuer in the name of the IP No.1. It is stated that originally the land was purchased by Shri Jasbir Singh along with two other persons out of Khasra No. 67/8 measuring 6 bighas 7 biswas and later on the said land was mutually partitioned by Sh. Jasbir Singh and the other two purchasers.
5. It is further stated that out of the land which fell to the share of Sh. Jasbir Singh, the applicant purchased part of the said land bearing Khasra No. 1024 in the consolidated proceedings of village Mundka. No other person except the claimant has any right, title or interest in the amount of compensation deposited with the Court pertaining to area measuring 1 Bigha 1-1/6 Biswas. The LAC has taken the possession of the area mentioned above directly from the claimant since the claimant was solely in possession and ownership of the acquired portion.
6. IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed reply to the claim of IP No.1 and taken the preliminary objection that IP no.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana has no locus-standi to file the present claim under reply and IP No.1 has no right, title or interest in the property in question. The claim filed by IP No.1 is the abuse process of law and without. On merits, the averments made in the claim by the IP No.1 are denied as wrong and incorrect. It is prayed that the answering claimants are entitled to get the compensation in respect of property in question and claim of IP No.1 may kindly be dismissed with cost.
7. IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not filed any claim.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 3/17
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 06.05.2010:
1. Which of the IP is entitled to compensation and to what an extent? OPP
2. Relief.
9. IP No. 1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana got himself examined as IP1W1 and also got examined IP1W2 Sh. Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo from the office of LAC (West); IP1W3 Sh. Satbir Singh, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate; and IP1W4 Sh. Jasbir Singh. Thereafter as per statement of Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Counsel for the IP No.1, the evidence on behalf of IP no.1 was closed on 27.10.2014.
10. IP No. 2 to 4 got themselves examined i.e. Sh. Suresh as IP No.2; Smt. Bala as IP No.3 and Sh. Raghubir Singh as IP4W1. Thereafter, as per order dated 11.04.2016 the evidence on behalf of IP Nos. 2 to 4 is closed.
11. I have heard Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Counsel for the IP no.1. There is not assistance on behalf of IP Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record. My findings on issue are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
12. Before deciding the issues, let us first peruse the evidence led by parties.
13. IP1W1 Sh. Rajeev Bhayana tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP1W1/A, in which he almost reiterated the LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 4/17 averments made in the claim. He further proved on record sale deed dated 22.07.1986 as Ex. IP1W1/1, GPA registered in the name of Smt. Ritpa Bhayana wife of Sh.Rajiv Bhayana as Ex. IP1W1/2 and agreement to sell in faovur of Sh. Rajiv Bhayana as Ex. IP1W1/3, Receipt as Ex.IP1W1/4 and affidavit as Ex. IP1W1/5.
14. In the cross-examination IP1W1 Sh. Rajeev Bhayana deposed that he has not filed any document regarding the ownership of Smt. Prabha Devi. The documents Ex. IP1W1/2, Ex. IP1W1/4 and Ex. IP1W1/5 do not bear his signatures. The document Ex. IP1W1/3 executed in the year 1994 and bears his signatures. Sh. Jagdish Kumar and one Advocate were also present at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in his favour. Sh. Jasbir Singh signed the GPA, Will, Receipt, Affidavit etc. and there must be more documents on which Sh. Jasbir Singh signed. The initial Khasra number purchased by him from Sh. Jasbir Singh was 67/8 which was allotted a new khasra number i.e. 1024 Mundka. He admitted that he has not filed any revenue record which shows that the Khasra no. 1024 was allotted in lieu of Khasra no. 67/8. He deposed that the GPA, Will and Receipt were executed at the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmiri Gate. He had purchased 1067 sq. yds. from Sh. Jasbir Singh. The total area of 3200 sq. yds. wa sunder the ownership of three people out of which Sh. Jasbir Singh became the owner of 1067 sq. yds. There was no written partition between Jasbir Singh, Devender Kumar and Gurudatta mal in respect of Khasra no. 67/8. He volunteered that the said Khasra number was changed to 1024. Sh. Jasbir Singh is alive and Sh. Jagdish is also alive.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 5/17
15. IP1W1 in his cross-examination further deposed that at the time of acquisition of Khasra no. 1024, two rooms were constructed on the said land. He had constructed the said room on Khasra no. 1024. He further volunteered that they were partly constructed prior to his purchase. He had constructed the said room in the year 1994 after its purchase. The said rooms were constructed by the labour but he cannot tell the names of the labourers. He did not issue any receipt to him after doing the construction work on the acquired property and receiving payment from him.
16. IP1W2 Sh. Hari Dutt Kauhik, Kanoongo brought the original Award file in respect of Award bearing no. 2/2008- 09, Village Mundka, Delhi. The said award also contains the structure valuation in respect of the structure existing on the land acquired and the copy of the same is Ex. IP1W2/1. He further deposed that the name of Sh. Rajeev Bhayana is mentioned at Sr. No. 7. An amount of Rs.86191/- is mentioned as the amount of structure valued by the DMRC pertaining to the structure of IP no.1. He admitted that as per the report dated 27.05.2008 Ex. IP1W2/1, the structures of those persons whose names have been mentioned in the above noted list were existing as on passing of the award. Apart from report Ex. IP1W2/1, there is no other valuation report pertaining to structures in the award file. As per report Ex. IP1W2/1, IP No.1 was occupying the structure in respect of which an amount of Rs.86191/- has been assessed vide award in question. In the cross-examination on behalf of IP No.2 to 4, he deposed that he was not present on the spot when DMRC prepared the valuation report Ex. IP1W2/1. He do not have any personal knowledge of this case.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 6/17
17. IP1W3 Sh. Satbir Singh, UDC examined in chief on 21.01.2013 and his cross-examination was deferred. But thereafter, he never appeared for completion of his examination. Therefore, his examination cannot be read.
18. IP1W4 Sh. Jasbir Singh deposed that he is the previous owner of the acquired land in question. In his affidavit of evidence, he deposed that he was the owner and in possession in respect of open land admeasuring (1-0) and 1.1/6 biswas, 1/3rd share in old Khasra no. 67/8 min and new Khasra No. 1024 min situated in the area of village Mundka, Delhi by virtue of registered sale deed executed in favour of deponent along with Shri Guruditta Mal and Shri Devinder Kumar dated 22.07.1986.
19. He further deposed that he sold the 1/3rd undivided share in the property bearing Khasra No. 1024 (New) to Shri Rajiv Bahayana vide agreement to sell dated 11.05.1994 and GPA dated 11.05.1994. He executed the GPA in favour of Smt. Ritpa Bhayana wife of Sh.Rajiv Bhayana. He further deposed that after the sale of his share to Smt. Ritpa Bhayana and Shri Rajiv Bhayana i.e. land admeasuring 1 bigha and 1-1/6 biswas, the physical and vacant possession of the said land was also handed over to Sh. Rajiv Bhayana, who thereafter constructed a boundary wall.
20. IP1W4 further deposed that he also filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 against the order dated 14.03.1996 along with Sh. Rajiv Bhayana and Smt. Ritpa Bhayana wherein the deponent LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 7/17 clearly stated that the physical possession of the land admeasuring 1 bigha and 1-1/6 biswas was handed over to Sh. Rajiv Bhayana.
21. In the cross-examination IP1W4 deposed that the Khasra number of the suit property is 1024, which is the new khasra number. He further deposed that the Chakbandi has been taken place in village Mundka. He did not have any documentary proof regarding Khasra no. 1024. He volunteered that the land khasra no. 1024 has been sold by him to Sh. Rajeev Bhayana and the documents in respect thereof were also handed over to him. He did not remember the old number of the said land. He had purchased the said land from one Rama, again said Prabha. He did not remember the kahsra number of which Prabha was the owner. Prabha was having ownership documents in respect of the land and he had sen the said documents. He did not know the details of the said documents. Those documents were not registered documents but in the form of Fards. He did not know the number of the award vide which the land in question was acquired. He had sold the land in question to Sh. Rajeev Bhayana in the year 1986-87, again said he had purchased the said land in 1986-87 and had sold the same to Sh. Rajeev in 1994 vide agreement to sell in favour of Sh. Rajeev and GpA in favour of his wife.
22. IP1W4 has denied the suggestion that the Consolidation Officer has taken the land in question from him on 14.03.1996. He admitted that he had challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer before the court of Financial Commissioner, who granted the stay, however he is n ot LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 8/17 aware what was the final decision in the said case. He is not aware about any writ petition qua the land in question pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He never visited the land in question after the possession of the same was got handed over to Sh. Rajeev Bhayana. The boundary wall on the land in question was already constructed by him. He did not know if the fact regarding the boundary wall was mentioned in the sale documents executed in favoru of Sh.Rajeev Bhayana. He is not aware of the total area of the Khasra no. 1024 min. The area sold by him to Sh. Rajeev Bhayana was measuring 1000 sq. yds.
23. IP1W4 has denied the suggestion that Prabha was never the owner of the land in question. He further denied the suggestion that he was never the owner of the land in question or that the same was withdrawn from him by the order of the Consolidation Officer. He did not remember the documents executed in favour of Prabha Devi were registered or not. He did not know from whom the said land was purchased by Prabha Devi. He cannot produce the documents executed in favour of Prabha Devi. He was having 1/3rd share in the land and the documents in respect of the said land were in his favour. The said land was near the Rohtak Road.
24. IP2 Sh. Suresh tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP2/A-1. He deposed that he was the recorded owner/bhumidhar and was in possession of property in question i.e. built up property measuring 5 biswas in khasra no. 1024 min situated within the extended abadi/extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, which he purchased on LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 9/17 16.12.1997 from Sh. Ved Singh S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, who executed a registered sale deed Ex. IP2/1 in his favour. The possession of the aforesaid property was also taken by the acquiring authority from him and IP No.1 has no right, title and interest in the suit property in question. The property was also mutated in his name in the revenue record and the khatoni for the year 2005-06 is Ex. IP2/2.
25. IP No.2 further stated that earlier the said land was purchased by Sh. Ved Singh S/o Sh. Bhim Singh from Sh.Ved Singh S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh vide registered sale deed Ex. IP2/3.
26. In the cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the IP no.1, the IP No.2 deposed that he purchased the acquired land from Sh.Ved Singh. He had constructed a boundary wall of a room on the acquired land at the time of acquisition. He does not remember the khasra number of the acquired land. The area of the land was 5 biswas. He received a notice from the DMRC regarding the acquisition of the property in the year 2008. At the time of purchase of the acquired land in the year 1997, the land was vacant. He did not apply for any electricity connection in respect of the acquired land. He volunteered that due to the acquisition proceedings. The area of the room was around 16x26. He did not know any document to show that he constructed the structure mentioned above. He has never heard of Sh. Jasbir Singh. He had purchased the above said property for Rs.60,000/-. There was eucalyptus trees on the acquired land. He did not remember the year when he get the land mutated in his name. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 10/17 Revenue office for getting the mutation of the land in his favour. He denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of the acquired land.
27. IP No.3 Smt. Bala tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP3/A-1. She deposed that he was the recorded owner/bhumidhar and was in possession of property in question i.e. built up property measuring 7 biswas in khasra no. 1024 min situated within the extended abadi/extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, which she purchased on 16.12.1997 from Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh.Sube Singh, who executed a registered sale deed Ex. IP3/1 in her favour. The possession of the aforesaid property was also taken by the acquiring authority from him and IP No.1 has no right, title and interest in the suit property in question. The property was also mutated in her name in the revenue record and the khatoni for the year 2005-06 is Ex. IP3/2.
28. IP No.3 further stated that earlier the said land was purchased by Sh. Ved Singh S/o Sh. Bhim Singh from Sh.Ved Singh S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh vide registered sale deed Ex. IP2/3.
29. In the cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the IP no.1, the IP No.3 deposed that she purchased the acquired land from Sh.Kuldeep Singh. She has visited the acquired property. At the time of purchase, the acquired land was vacant. He had constructed a boundary wall on the acquired land. The area of the acquired land was 7 biswas. She did not remember the old khasra number of the acquired land. She did not remember if she received any notice from LAC with LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 11/17 respect to the acquisition of the property. She did not remember the date of getting the land mutated in her favour. She volunteered that mutation was got done after the purchase of the land. She did not know Sh. Jasbir Singh or Sh. Chattar Singh. She had purchased the above said property for Rs.60,000/-. There was eucalyptus trees on the acquired land. She had visited the SDM office in Nangloi for the purpose of getting the land mutated in her name. The LAC took the possession of the acquired property from her in the year 2008-09. She was never cultivating the acquired land nor she ever used he acquired land for residential purposes. There was no electricity connection on the acquired land. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the Revenue office for getting the mutation of the land in his favour. He denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of the acquired land.
30. IP4W1 Sh. Raghbir Singh tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP4W1/A. He deposed that he was the recorded owner/bhumidhar and was in possession of property in question i.e. built up property measuring 9 biswas in khasra no. 1024 min situated within the extended abadi/extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, which he purchased on 16.12.1997 from Sh. Bhim Singh S/o Sh.Kewal Singh, who executed a registered sale deed Ex. IP4/1 in his favour. The possession of the aforesaid property was also taken by the acquiring authority from him and IP No.1 has no right, title and interest in the suit property in question. The property was also mutated in hus name in the revenue record and the khatoni for the year 2005-06 is Ex. IP4/2.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 12/17
31. In the cross-examination IP4W1 deposed that he has purchased the property in question in the year 1997. It was purchased from Sh. Bhim Singh. He admitted that there was a mutation entry in the name of Sh. Bhim Singh in the revenue record. At the time of acquisition of land, there was one room constructed by him. The area of Khasra No. 1024 is 1 Bigha and 50 sq. yards. Vol. I cannot tell the exact measurement of the same. I do not remember whether any notice received by me from LAC. At the time of the purchase of the said property it was vacant land. After the purchase I had constructed one room. It was near completion when Metro had taken the possession. He volunteered that even the plaster was not completed at the time of acquisition. He did not apply for the electricity connection. The size of the room was approximately of the size of the court room no.
215.
32. He further deposed in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge whether the old Khasra no. of acquired land was 67/8. He has heard about Sh. Jasbir Singh. He can recognize him after seeing. He had constructed a boundary wall. He has no documentary proof regarding bricks and material for constructing boundary wall. He did not remember the names of neighbours surrounding my lands. He had purchased the acquired land for Rs.60,000/-. He might have filed claim before LAC. He further deposed that there were may be 10 trees of eucalyptus at the land in question. He did not remember in which year he got mutation done in his name. He volunteered that his children used to take care of all these works. He did not remember whether he had visited SDM office for mutation process. The office of SDM is situated at Nangloi.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 13/17
33. He further deposed during his cross-examination that he did not remember the year of taking over possession of the acquired land by the Metro. Sh. Bhim Singh had purchased the land in question from Sh. Bijender. He did not remember the year of purchase. Bhim Singh had shown only the documents pertaining to purchasing from Bijender. He can produce the same. He denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of the acquired land. He further denied the suggestion that IP no. 1 is the actual owner of the acquired land. He denied the suggestion that he was never in possession of the acquired property. He denied the suggestion that the possession of the acquired property was taken by the LAC from the IP No.1.
34. The present reference is with regard to Khasra no. 1024 (1 Bigha 1 Biswa). IP No. 1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana is stated to be the Objector and Sh. Suresh Kumar, Smt. Bala and Sh.Raghbir Singh are mentioned to be the owners of the acquired land. As per claim and evidence of the witnesses of IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana, he is owner and in possession of commercial built up property measuring 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas of the acquired land. Documents proved on record are GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, and affidavit, which are Ex. IP1W1/2 to Ex. IP1W1/5 respectively executed on 11.05.1994. These documents mentioned about the specification of the land i.e. Old Khasra No. 67/8 min and new Khasra No. 1024. IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana further proved the sale deed dated 22.07.1986 between Smt. Prabha in favour of Sh.Gurditta Mal, Sh. Jasbir Singh and Sh. Devinder Kumar as Ex. IP1W1/1. As per these documents, it is established that in the year 1986, one Smt. Prabha had sold the acquired land in question LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 14/17 to three persons, namely, Sh.Gurditta Mal, Sh. Jasbir Singh and Sh. Devinder Kumar. Thereafter, on 11.05.1994, Sh.Jasbir Singh, one of the co-owner sold the land measuring 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas i.e. 1/3rd share to the IP no. 1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana.
35. IP1W2 Sh. Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo further proved the record with regard to structure valuation by DMRC of the acquired land and report. According to which, IP no.1 is mentioned at Sl. No.7 and valued the structure on acquired land for Rs.86,191/-. It further corroborate the possession and occupation of the acquired land by the IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana to the extent of 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas i.e. 1/3rd share. IP1W3 Sh. Satbir Singh, UDC from the office Sub- Registrar-I, proved the GPA executed by Sh. Jasbir Singh in favour of Sh. Rajiv Bhayana and Smt. Ripta Bhayana but his testimony cannot be relied as he failed to appear for cross- examination. However, Sh. Jasbir Singh - previous owner appeared in witness box and he also proved the sale documents in favour of IP No. 1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana. In the cross-examination as discussed here in above, he remained coherent, cogent and denied all the suggestions put to him. As per sale deed Ex. IP1W1/1, in the year 1986, one Smt.Prabha was the owner of ½ share of 3 Bigha 3 ½ Biswa of land in Khasra No. 67/8 min (6 Bigha 7 Biswa) of Village Mundka and sold to the above said three persons. Thereafter, Sh. Jasbir Singh sold his 1/3rd share measuring 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas to IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana. This fact is established and proved on record. It is further established on record that the old Khasra number was 67/8 min and new Khasra number is 1024.
LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 15/17
36. On the other hand, IP Nos. 2 to 4 relied on sale deed executed by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Sh. Suresh Kumar as Ex. IP2/1 dated 16.12.1992. After going through the sale deed, it mentions about the built up property of land measuring 5 Biswa in Khasra No. 1024 min. However, there is no details given how the vender Sh. Ved Singh has become owner of 5 Biswas of land of Khasra No. 1024. There is no mention about any old Khasra number. Similarly, another sale deed proved by IP No.4 Sh. Raghbir Singh Ex. IP4/1. According to which Sh. Bhim Singh sold the built up property on land measuring 9 Biswas out of Khasra No.1024 min to IP No.4 Sh. Raghbir Singh. Another sale deed proved by IP No.3 Smt. Bala Ex. IP3/1. According to which, one Sh. Kuldeep Singh sold on 16.12.1997 land measuring 7 Biswas of Khasra No.1024 min. All the sale deeds are silent on old Khasra number. It is pertinent to mention here that as per joint report, after acquisition of land of LAC officials and DMRC officials Ex. IP1W2/1 with regard to the acquired land in question, there are 12 persons mentioned and it does not mention the name of either of IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4. However, it specifically mentions about IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana and his structure was also valued. IP Nos. 2 to 4 have not proved any record pertaining to the land in question, which establish that as per revenue records Sh. Ved Singh, Sh. Bhim Singh and Sh.Kuldeep Singh were the recorded owners of the respective lands. IP Nos. 2 to 4 also not examined any witness from the revenue office to establish their bonafide sale from above said alleged owners.
37. In my considered opinion, IP Nos. 2 to 4 failed to establish their ownership with regard to the acquired land of LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 16/17 Khasra No. 1024. Hence, IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana is entitled to the compensation to the extent of 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas in Khasra No. 1024 min and IP Nos.2 to 4, namely, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Smt. Bala and Sh.Raghbir Singh are not entitled for any compensation. The Issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
38. In view of my observation and discussion on the issue no.1 above, it is held that IP No.1 Sh. Rajiv Bhayana is entitled to the compensation to the extent of 1 Bigha 1.1/6 Biswas in Khasra No. 1024 min and IP Nos.2 to 4, namely, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Smt. Bala and Sh.Raghbir Singh are not entitled for any compensation.
39. The reference is answered accordingly.
40. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
41. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 24th May, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 24.05.2017 LAC No. 2A/10/09 (New No.260/16) Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhayana & Ors. 17/17