Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Sh. Suraj Bhan on 15 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1,
DISTRICT-NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
LAC No. 94B/2015
Award No. 243/86-87
Village : Narela
In the Matter of:
Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. .....Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Suraj Bhan,
S/o Sh. Attar Singh
(Since deceased through his Lrs)
a. Smt. Daya Wati, W/o Suraj Bhan
b. Sh. Sunder, S/o Suraj Bhan
c. Sh. Sunil, S/o Suraj Bhan
d. Sh. Santosh, S/o Suraj Bhan
2. Sh. Bal Kishan,
S/o Sh. Attar Singh
3. Sh. Jeet Ram
S/o Sh. Gorkha
4. Sh. Sri Lal,
S/o Sh. Gorkha
5. Sh. Amar Singh,
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.1/26
6. Sh. Meer Singh,
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
7. Sh. Jile Singh
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
8. Sh. Ragubir Singh
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
9. Smt. Sunder Devi,
W/o Sh. Roop Chand
10.Sh. Sardare,
S/o Sh. Tekram
(Since deceased through Lrs)
a. Smt. Ram Kumari -Widow
b. Smt. Mohini Devi - Daughter
c. Sh. Govind - Son
d. Ms. Shakuntala - Daughter
e. Sh. Mahavir Singh - Son (Minors through their
mother Smt. Ram Kumari).
11.Sh. Jaipal,
S/o Sh. Tekram
12.Sh. Rohtash
S/o Sh. Tekram
(Since deceased through LR)
i. Vishwanath (minor) through his father
Sh. Dharam Pal @ Billu
13.Sh. Billu,
S/o Sh. Tekram
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.2/26
14.Sh. Rajender,
S/o Sh. Ranjit
(Since deceased through his Lrs)
i. Smt. Jaswanti Devi - Widow
ii. Sh. Sanjeev Khatri - Son
iii. Sh. Rajeev Khatri - Son
iv. Sh. Sandeep Khatri - Son
v. Smt. Manju - Married daughter
All R/o H. no. 1167, Pana Paposian,
VPO Narela, Delhi-40.
15.Sh. Rajbir
S/o Sh. Ranjit
16.Sh. Surjan
S/o Sh. Nanhe
17.Sh. Zile Singh
S/o Sh. Neki
(Since deceased through his Lrs)
a. Sh. Devi Singh
b. Sh. Ranbir
c. Sh. Krishan
All sons of deceased Zile Singh
d. Smt. Laxmi Devi
Widow of deceased Zile Singh
e. Smt. Murti Devi
W/o Sh. Subhash Chand
f. Smt. Beero Devi
W/o Sh. Dharambir
All daughters of Jile Singh
g. Sh. Naresh Khatri
h. Sh. Sanjay Khatri
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.3/26
both grand sons of deceased Jile Singh
and sons of Jaipal deceased.
i. Smt. Kamla
W/o deceased Jai pal and daughter in law of deceased
Jile Singh IP No. 17.
18.Sh. Kali Ram
S/o Sh. Sher Singh
(Since deceased through his Lrs)
a. Suraj Bhan (son)
b. Sh. Ram Chander (son)
c. Sh. Laxman (son)
d. Sh. Chand Ram (deceased son through Lrs)
i. Sh. Bhupender Singh (son)
ii. Narender (son)
iii. Ms. Soniya (daughter)
iv. Smt. Santosh (widow)
e. Smt. Murti Devi (daughter)
f. Smt. Om Pati (daughter)
All R/o Panna Paposian, Narela, Delhi-40.
19.Sh. Narain Singh,
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
(Since deceased through his Lrs)
a. Smt. Attar Kaur (wife)
b. Sh. Krishan Kumar (Son)
c. Sh. Anil Kumar (son)
a to c R/o H. No. 1055, Pana Paposian,
Narela, Delhi-40.
d. Smt. Anju (daughter)
W/o Sh. Vinod
e. Smt. Kusum (daughter)
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
d and e R/o VPO Ishapur, Delhi. ....Interested Persons.
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.4/26
Date of Institution of Reference: 25.03.1987
Date of Assignment to this court: 06.04.2015
Date of Arguments: 04.02.2016
Date of Order: 15.02.2016
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 30-31 OF L. A. ACT.
1. Vide Award No. 243/1986-87, land of village Narela, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for public purpose as detailed in award. These were the proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 67/11min (2-8), 22 min(3-0) and 76/1/1(1-
16) total area measuring 7 bighas 04 biswas in Village Narela. The LAC has sent Rs.2,50,880.70 paise only for compensation of the land in question. The matter qua above said land was referred to the Court under section 30-31 of L. A. Act as there was a dispute among the interested persons of the part of acquired land. The notification U/s 4 & 17 of L. A. Act was issued and thereafter, declaration U/s 6 of L. A. Act was issued. 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 case were issued to the IPs as per memorandum sent LAC-94B/2015 Page No.5/26 by the LAC.
3. IP No. 1 and 2 namely Sh. Suraj Bhan and Sh. Bal Kishan have filed joint claim stating that claimants are the bhumidhars in possession of acquired land to the extent of 1/4th share each and the claimants remained in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of acquired land in their own rights as bhumidhars at all reasonable time i.e. at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 and 6 of the Act and also at the time of announcement of award and the possession of acquired land was also taken from the claimants. It was stated that no other person except the claimants are entitled to have the amount of compensation of their share i.e. 1/4th each in the acquired land. Hence, it was prayed that amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land situated in village Narela, Delhi may be ordered to be paid to claimants/ IP No. 1 and 2 to the extent of 1/4th share each to the exclusion of all others in the interest of justice.
4. Claim petition was filed on behalf of IP No. 3 and 4 namely Jeet Ram and Siri Lal respectively stating that present reference has been referred to this Court for apportionment of the compensation amount between rightful claimants assessed for the land in question total measuring 7 bighas 4 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Narela, Delhi which has been acquired by the Govt. It was averred that claimants IP No. 3 and 4 had got their land separated from the remaining co-bhumidhars/co-sharers by the order of Ld. Revenue Asst. Delhi and thus the claimants are the exclusive owner LAC-94B/2015 Page No.6/26 of land bearing khasra No. 67/11 measuring 2 bighas and 8 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Narela, Delhi. It was also stated that claimants were in the actual physical, cultivatory possession of land bearing khasra No. 67/11 (2-8) the acquired land as bhumidar at all reasonable times i.e. at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 and 5 of the Act and also at the time of announcement of award and the possession of acquired land was also taken from the claimants. It was also averred that claimant IP No. 4 Sh. Siri Lal has relinquished his total right/share in the land in favour of IP No. 3 Jeet Ram vide order of Naib Tehsildar Head quarters in case No. 54/84-85 dated 01.05.85 and IP No. 3 is the only person entitled to receive the compensation amount of 2 bighas and 8 biswas out of total acquired land i.e. 7 bighas 4 biswas to the exclusion of all other persons. Hence present claim was filed and it was prayed that amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land bearing Khasra No. 67/11 (2-8) situated in the revenue estate of village Narela, Delhi may be ordered to be paid to IP No. 3 to the exclusion of other persons in the interest of justice.
5. IP No. 6 Sh. Meer Singh also filed his claim stating that claimant is bhumidhar in possession of acquired land to the extent of his share at all reasonable time and the claimant remained in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of acquired land in his own right as bhumidhar at all reasonable time i.e. at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 and 6 of the Act and also at the time of LAC-94B/2015 Page No.7/26 announcement of award and the possession of acquired land was also taken from the claimants. It was stated that no other person except the claimant is entitled to have the amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land to the extent of his share. Hence, it was prayed that amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land situated in village Narela, Delhi may be ordered to be paid to claimant/ IP No. 6 to the extent of his share to the exclusion of all others in the interest of justice.
6. Joint claim was filed by IPs No. 10 to 13 namely Sh. Sardare, Sh. Jaipal, Sh. Rohtash and Sh. Billu, all sons of Sh. Tek Ram (wrongly mentioned as IP No. 9 to 12) wherein it was stated that they are co- bhumidhars in possession of acquired land to the extent of their shares mentioned in the revenue records and claimants were in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of acquired land at all reasonable times i.e. at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 and 6 of the Act and also at the time of announcement of award and the possession of acquired land was also handed over to government by the claimants. It was stated that no other person except the claimants are entitled to have the amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land to the extent of their shares. Hence, it was prayed that amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land situated in village Narela, Delhi may be ordered to be paid to claimants/ IPs No. 10 to 13 in the interest of justice.
7. IP No. 5 Sh. Amar Singh, IP No. 7 Sh. Zile Singh, IP No. 8 Sh. Raghubir LAC-94B/2015 Page No.8/26 Singh and IP no. 19 Sh. Narayan Singh, All sons of Sh. Roop Chand filed their joint claim stating that claimants are the co-bhumidhars in actual physical and cultivatory possession of acquired lands as per their shares given in the revenue records and was in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of acquired land for which the amount of compensation is referred to this Court at all reasonable times i.e. at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 and 6 of the Act and also at the time of announcement of award and the possession of acquired land was also handed over to government by the claimants. It was further pleaded that if there is any adverse entry in the revenue records to the rights of claimants, the same is wrong and against the facts of the spot and no other person except the claimants are entitled to have the amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land. Hence, it was prayed that amount of compensation assessed for the acquired land to the extent of shares of claimants may be ordered to be paid to claimants/ IPs to the exclusion of all others in the interest of justice.
8. IPs No. 17 and 18 Sh. Kali Ram and Sh. Zile Singh have also filed their claim in the present reference proceedings stating that Claimant Kali Ram had been in continuous cultivatory possession of 2 bighas and 8 biswas out of 4 bigha 12 biswas comprising in Khasra No. 67/11 situated in village Narela, Delhi and like-wise claimant No. 2 Zile Singh had also been in continuous cultivatory possession of 2 bighas 8 biswas comprising in khasra No. 67/22 and 1 bigha 16 LAC-94B/2015 Page No.9/26 biswas comprising in khasra No. 76/1/1 situated within the revenue estate of Narela, Delhi. It was stated that their possession on the respective land was more than 3 years ad without the consent of the recorded bhumidhars and they have been retaining the possession on said land otherwise than in accordance with provisions of law for the time being enforce and thus under the provisions of DLR Act they have become entitled to be declared as bhumidar and the right, title or interest of the bhumidar, if any was extinguished by a lapse of time because they failed to initiate any proceedings of ejectment against the claimant within stipulated time. It was pleaded in claim petition that claimants filed applications for declaration of bhumidari rights before the Revenue Courts and cases were fixed for evidence but in the meantime the land in question was acquired and the Union of India took possession of said land from the above said claimants. It was stated that claimants are only persons who are entitled to receive the amount of compensation of land. Hence present claim was filed.
9. Reply was filed by IP No. 14 and 15 namely Sh. Rajender Singh and Smt. Krishna Devi to the claim of IP No. 17 and 18 stating that physical possession of land in dispute was always with the respondents till the acquisition of land in Award No. 243/86-87 and answering respondents were in actual physical possession of land in dispute till the acquisition of land. It was also stated that no notice was given to the respondents for suit under section 85 before the LAC-94B/2015 Page No.10/26 Court of Revenue Assistant and it is only answering respondents who are entitled for the compensation of land acquired by the government. The other contents of claim petition were denied and it was prayed that present claim filed by claimants be dismissed with heavy costs.
10.IP No. 16 Sh. Surjan also filed his separate claim in which it was stated that claimant was the owner and in possession of land bearing No. 55/1 (4-3), 2(4-16), 9(4-16), 26 (0-13), 67/11(4-16), 19(4-5), 20(4-16), 22(4-16), 22 (6-0), 76/1/1(1-15) total measuring 44 bighas 17 biswas situated in revenue estate of village Narela, Delhi to the extent of 1/35th share in revenue records which has been acquired by LAC vide the above award and LAC has also assessed the compensation of said land in the name of claimant as per his share but due to some dispute the LAC has referred the case U/s 30 and 31 of L. A. Act to this Court. It was also stated that no person other than the claimant has any right, title or interest in said land and claimant is only entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation of said land as assessed by LAC in his name. It was also stated market value as assessed by LAC in respect of said land is too low and inadequate and does not represent its true market value at the time of notification U/s 4 of the Act. Hence claim petition was preferred by the IP.
11.Joint claim was filed by IP No. 14 Sh. Rajinder and Lrs of IP No. 15 (Rajbir) stating that claimants are the joint owners of khata khatoni LAC-94B/2015 Page No.11/26 No. 286-287/262 total land 64 bighas 12 biswas. It was stated that claimants are entitled for the claim to the extent of their shares i.e. 2/35th out of the joint holding and for the area measuring 7 bighas 14 biswas situated in revenue estate of village Panna Paposian Narela. It was stated that said share priorly was of Sh. Roop Chand and his sons and it was purchased by claimants. It was averred that at the time of award, the claimants were in cultivatory physical possession of land in dispute and are the owners, bhumidars under the provisions of DLR Act. Hence, present claim petition was filed by above IPs.
12.During the proceedings of the case, the several IPs as detailed in memo of parties were expired at different stages during the pendency of present reference petition and applications were moved for impleading their respective LRs. Thereafter, LR verification reports were called from concerned department. Upon receipt of LR verification reports, their Lrs were brought on record vide different orders passed by Ld. Predecessor this Court.
13.During the proceedings of case, nobody appeared on behalf of IP No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 19, hence proceedings against them were abetted and IP No. 14, 16 and 17 were proceeded ex- parte due to non-appearance. IP no. 12 has so many LRs but none appeared on their behalf and though IP no. 13 had been appearing as guardian of minor son but no evidence has been led.
14.Sh. Sunil LR of IP No. 1 relied upon the evidences led by Sh. Bal LAC-94B/2015 Page No.12/26 Kishan IP No. 2.
15.As far as evidence of IP No. 2 is concerned, Sh. Mahinder Singh, S/o Late Shri Chand was produced as IP2W1 and Sh. Bal Kishan S/o Late Attar Singh was produced as IP2W2 and was also cross-examined by counsel for IPs No. 17 and 18.
16. In evidence of IP No. 12, Sh. Biloo @ Dharampal S/o Late Tek Ram was produced as IP12W1. He was also cross-examined by counsel for IPs No. 17 and 18. He is in fact IP no. 13 on file.
17.In evidence, IP No. 17 Zile Singh S/o Negi and IP No. 18 Sh. Kali Ram S/o Sher Singh produced themselves in witness box and were also cross-examined. Further Sh. Jagdish Singh, Patwari was examined as IP17W1, Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Late Sh. Badlu Ram was examined as IP17W2, Sh. Harpal Singh, Retired Girdawar was examined as IP17W3, Sh. Iqbal Singh, Patwari was examined as IP17W4.
18.Sh. Dharamveer, S/o Late Hari Chand was examined as IP18W2.
19. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that in order sheets, the number of IPs is wrongly mentioned from place to place because two memorandum has been filed and some of the LRs have been given separate IP Number. By going through the file as far as possible, the memorandum of parties have been prepared in the judgment.
20. It is observed that IP No. 9 Sunder Devi has not filed the claim. Even otherwise, neither she has appeared later on nor any evidence has been led. So claim of IP No. 9 Sunder Devi stands rejected.
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.13/2621. Now coming to the claim of rest of the IPs, it has to be seen that though they had been appearing earlier but none appeared on behalf of IPs No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 19 and later on, today also none has appeared on behalf of them nor any evidence was led. Hence, their claim stands rejected.
22. As far as claim of IP No. 14 is concerned, he was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 03.10.2002 and nor any evidence was led. Hence, their claim stands rejected.
23. IP no. 10 and 16 had also not been appearing in the matter for number of dates nor any evidence has been led on their behalf. Hence, claim of these IPs have not been considered for want of oral evidence and documents. The evidence is only led by three set of IPs i.e. IP No. 17 and 18 namely Zile Singh and Kali Ram on one hand, IP No. 13 Rohtash on second hand and IP No. 1 and 2 namely Suraj Bhan and Bal kishan on third hand whereby Lrs of IP No. 1 has adopted the evidence led by IP No. 2. So claim is to be adjusted between IP No. 1 and 2 on one hand and IP No. 13 on second hand and IP no. 17 and 18 on third hand.
24.I have gone through the material available on record and have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for respective IPs. My findings in the present reference petition are given below:-
25. The details of IPs in present reference are given below in tabulation form for better elucidation of facts:-
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.14/26 Sr. No. IP No. Basis
1. 1&2 Cultivatory possession/bhumidar
of 1/4th share
2. 13 Cultivatory possession/co-
bhumidar
3. 17 & 18 Cultivatory possession
26. The IP No. 1 and 2 have not mentioned the details of land in the claim petition. Similarly, IP No. 13 has not mentioned the details of land in the claim petition.
27. IP No. 18 Sh. Kali Ram had claimed that he is in possession of acquired bearing Khasra No. 67/11 and IP No. 17 Sh. Zile Singh is claiming that he is in possession of acquired land bearing Khasra No. 67/22 (2-8) and 76/1/1 (1-16). One has to see the documents Ex. PW-1/A to F for the purposes of determining the claim of Zile Singh. Two things are to be seen whether he is in possession of land or whether he has become bhumidhar by virtue of continuous possession for 3 years. The name of Zile Singh is found mentioned in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1983 in the form P5 with respect to khasra No. 67/22(2-8) out of 6 bigha 0 biswas and full share in 76/1/1. Same is position in khasra giradawaries of the year 1984. Even the existence of crop of wheat and Jwar are mentioned up to the year 1985. In form P4 for the year 1982-83 possession qua Khasra No. 67/22 and 76/1/1 are same vide Ex. PW-1/A and B respectively. Rather nothing material has come out in the cross-
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.15/26examination of IP No. 17.
28. To rebut this, IP2W1 Sh. Mahender Singh had appeared who had no knowledge of khasra number but he has stated that there is dispute with khasra no. 1, 2, 9 which is not case herein. He did not remember as to which khasra number were irrigated by IP No. 2. He did not know as to which khasra number has been acquired. He has talked about khasra No. 55/1 which is not disputed khasra in the present case. He has even not filed any of the khasra girdawaries in his favour qua khasra No. 67/22 and 76/1/1. IP2W2 also appeared in evidence and he relied upon khasra girdawaries Ex. IP2W/A to E i.e. Khatauni for the year 1986-87. In fact these khataunis are not Ex. IP2W/A to E but they are Ex. IP2W2/1 to 3 as produced by Bal Kishan wherein share of Suraj Bhan and Balkishan IP No. 1 and 2 has been shown in number of khasra numbers including Khasra No. 67/22 and 76/1/1 (1-16) in the year 1983-87 but in remarks it has been mentioned that it has been acquired. The share is shown as such as of 1/4th but their name is found mentioned in the column of Khatedar. If khatauni produced by IP No. 1 and 2 is compared with Form P4 produced by IP No. 17 qua Khasra No. 67/22(2-8) and 76/1/1 (1-16) , the possession of Zile Singh is well-established. As far as khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) is concerned, the whole of the land is in possession of Zile Singh but total acquired land is 3 bighas 0 biswas and the possession of Zile Singh is established qua 2 bighas 8 biswas and rest of the 2 bighas of the acquired land remains with IP No. 1 and 2 LAC-94B/2015 Page No.16/26 for the purposes of compensation. Simultaneously claim of IP no. 13 is to be adjudged. Sh. Tek Ram IP no. 13 in his cross-examination has stated that he does not know khasra number. His evidence is of no use because he has not been able to tell actual picture but still one has to go through revenue record which is available on record, even if oral testimony has not thrown light on the controversy. The right of person should not be jeoparadised if the same is made out from record. IP No. 13 is entitled for 1/80 th share because they are four share holders namely Sardare, Jaipal, Rohtash and Billu, S/o Tek Ram having 1/20th share. The documents thus show that IP no. 17 is entitled for the claim being in possession and 1,2 and 13 being owner and ratio is to be determined in between them. The observations made above are totally applicable to khasra no. 67/22 pertaining to IP no. 17 on one hand and IP no. 1,2 and 13 on other hand as per their share.
29.The same reasoning given above is fully applicable while determing the claim of IP no. 18 Kali Ram with respect to khasra no. 67/11 and his case do not differ from the reasoning and observations given above for khasra no. 67/22 and 76/1/1 as per the statement of Kali Ram himself and after relying upon documents Ex. PW-1/A to PW- 1/G.
30.Now for how the compensation is to be divided, the law is clear in this respect. The counsel for both the parties have drawn my attention to one decision passed by Ms. Poonam S. Bamba, Ld. ADJ in LAC-94B/2015 Page No.17/26 case titled UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana decided on 08.02.2008 as well as judgment passed by Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ADJ and Predecessor of this court in case titled UOI vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana decided on 27.04.2013 wherein various judgments of Superior Courts in this respect have been discussed. Though these judgments are not determining factor but observation and interpretation in view of the law laid down by the Superior Courts can be helpful. In the judgment passed by Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ, 100% compensation was granted to IP No. 2 who was in possession and nothing was granted to IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha Bawana who was recorded owner. In the second judgment passed by Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. Predecessor of this Court, 80% of compensation was granted to IP No. 2 who was held to be in cultivatory possession and 20% of compensation was granted to IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha Bawana. Reliance was placed upon judgment titled Raj Singh Vs. UOI reported in 2009(III) AD (Delhi) 114, Moti Lal Jain Vs. Mukhtiyar Singh" reported in 117 (2005) DLT 538, judgment titled "Rattan Singh Vs. UOI reported in 1993 (26) DRJ 577 and Rama Shankar Vs. Mukhitiare reported in 2007 (98) DRJ 517 and it was concluded that where a person proves possession but no application U/s 85 of DLR Act was moved nor was declared owner, should be given compensation in the ratio of 40:60. When a person proves his ownership U/s 85 of DLR Act, should be given compensation in the ratio of 20:80. The person in actual cultivatory LAC-94B/2015 Page No.18/26 physical possession for three years prior to acquisition should be given 80% of compensation. Reliance was also placed upon Section 67, 84, 85 and 86 (A) of DLR Act. 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 person occupying land without title - (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the law for the time being in force and
(a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidar or Asami or
(b)....
Shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidar, Asami or.....
85. Failure to title 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 LAC-94B/2015 Page No.19/26 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 Bhumidar, become a Bhumidar thereof;...."
86A. Ejectment by revenue assistant of persons occupying land without title - Notwithstanding anything obtained 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."
So when Gaon Sabha has not filed a suit for ejecment as per Section 86 (A) of DLR Act or Revenue Assistant should have ejected IP No. 2 who was in possession of said land without any authority but if same has not been done then as per judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled Renu Gupta & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT 2004 (2) AD Delhi 463, a person becomes Bhoomidar. The operating para is reproduced as under:-
"8. Section 84 of DLR Act provides that a person taking or retaining the possession of the land other than in accordance with the provisions of the 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 LAC-94B/2015 Page No.20/26 terms of Section 85 of the 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 the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession (was) where the land forms 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 1 st July following the date of occupation."
Thus though IP no. 17 and 18 remained in uninterpreted cultivatory possession of suit land since long till acquisition of suit land i.e. more than 3 year. IP No. 17 and 18 became Bhumidar of said land in terms of Section 85 of DLR Act.
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 learned Addl. District Judge, stood rebutted because Behari seemed to LAC-94B/2015 Page No.21/26 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."
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 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 LAC-94B/2015 Page No.22/26 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.
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.
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.23/267. ......
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."
Now crux of the above observation is that by implication IP No. 17 and 18 can be treated as Bhumidar in possession and though they may be entitled to more than 80% compensation but this fact can also not be ignored that IP no. 1,2 and 13 have remained recorded bhumidar till acquisition and IP No. 17 and 18 have never asserted their right by taking appropriate steps. They have never challenged the entires in their favour and so they themselves are guilty and cannot reap the fruits of their non action. Though, counsel for IP No. 17 and 18 have argued in view of the above settled law that he is entitled for 100% of compensation but in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to give 100% compensation to IP No. 17 and 18 as IP no. 1,2 and 13 are also recorded owner, hence they are also entitled to some compensation.
31.The whole thing can be summarized now by saying that IP No. 17 Zile Singh is entitled for 80% compensation in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-
16) being in cultivatory possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being khatedar in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) to the extent of 1/4 th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. Further, IP No. 17 Zile Singh is entitled for 80% compensation in Khasra No. LAC-94B/2015 Page No.24/26 67/22min(2-8) being in cultivatory possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being khatedar in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) to the extent of 1/4 th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. The IP no. 18 is entitled for 80% compensation on account of his possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being khatedar in Khasra No. 67/11min (2-8) to the extent of 1/4th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. Further as the acquired area of 67/22 is 3 bighas and IP no. 17 has claimed only for 2 bighas 8 biswas hence 100% compensation is granted for remaining 2 biswas to IP no. 1 and 2 jointly for 1/4th share and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share.
32. Rest of the amount is required to be sent to SBI, Tis Hazari Court to be deposited in the form of FDR with maximum interest.
33. Relief:- In view of the above finding, the reference is decided.IP No. 17 Zile Singh is entitled for 80% compensation in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) being in cultivatory possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being khatedar in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) to the extent of 1/4 th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. Further, IP No. 17 Zile Singh is entitled for 80% compensation in Khasra No. 67/22min(2-8) being in cultivatory possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being LAC-94B/2015 Page No.25/26 khatedar in Khasra No. 76/1/1 (1-16) to the extent of 1/4 th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. The IP no. 18 is entitled for 80% compensation on account of his possession and IP No. 1, 2 and 13 are entitled for 20% compensation in toto as per their share being khatedar in Khasra No. 67/11min (2-8) to the extent of 1/4th share only and IP no. 13 for 1/80th share as per their claim. Further as the acquired area of 67/22 is 3 bighas and IP no. 17 has claimed only for 2 bighas 8 biswas hence 100% compensation is granted for remaining 2 biswas to IP no. 1 and 2 jointly for 1/4th share and IP no. 13 for 1/80 th share. Payment be called with up to date interest in the name of parties. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IPs 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 15.02.2016 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi.
LAC-94B/2015 Page No.26/26