Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Sh. Chandgi S/O Jeetu on 4 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, ADJ01:
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
LAC No. 122B/08
UID No. 02404C160582008
Union of India
Versus
1. Sh. Chandgi S/o Jeetu
2. Sh. Rati Ram S/o Jai Lal (deceased) through LR:
2(a) Jagdish S/o Late Rati Ram
2(b) Jagbir son of late Rati Ram (deceased) through LR:
2(b)(i) Smt. Jagwanti wife of late Jagbir
2(b)(ii) Master Rohit s/o late Jagbir
2(b)(iii) Master Mohit s/o late Jagbir
2(c) Jeet Singh s/o late Rati Ram
2(d) Daya Nand s/o late Rati Ram
3. Sh. Mahender Singh S/o Dharam Singh
4. Sh. Laxman S/o Kanhi Ram
5. Sh. Om Parkash S/o Suraj Bhan
6. Sh. Jai Kanwar S/o Suraj Bhan
7. Sh. Jai Singh S/o Suraj Bhan
LAC NO. 122B/08 1 of 24
All R/o Village and Post Office Sanoth, Delhi.
Award No. : 11/2004.05
Village : Sanoth
Date of Institution : 05.04.2005
Date of Arguments : 04.06.2011
Date of judgment : 04.08.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement I shall decide the reference u/s 3031 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act,) sent by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called as LAC) to decide the apportionment of compensation with respect to Khasra No. 54/26(005), 23/21(409), 39/1(416), situated in the revenue estate of village Sanoth which was acquired vide Award no. 11/200405.
2. As per the memorandum sent by the LAC there are six interested parties, however vide order dated 31.07.2006 Sh. Jai Singh was being necessary party implead as added interested party no. 7 (hereinafter called as IP).
LAC NO. 122B/08 2 of 24
3. As per the Naksha Muntzamin sent by the LAC IP no. 1 is recorded bhumidhar but he is either died or did not exist, therefore IP no. 2 to 6 claimed compensation.
4. In its claim, IP no. 2 has stated that LAC has sent the th compensation amount of 1/4 share out of the land bearing khasra no. 23/21(409), 39/1(416), 54//(05) recorded in the th name of IP no. 1. It is further stated that 1/4 share has been wrongly and illegally entered in the name of fictitious and non existent person namely Chandagi S/o Jeetu in the revenue record whereas no such person took birth in the family history of IPs or ever exists in the village Sanoth. That name of Chandagi was sometime reflected in the year 194748 due to wrong entry made by revenue officials. IP no. 2 had no knowledge of the said wrong entry and only came to know first time when he applied for the revenue records of the above lands in the month of August, 2004 for preparation of filing of reference petition for enhancement of the compensation and he was continuously cultivating the above said land besides his other acquired lands exclusively till it was acquired. It is further LAC NO. 122B/08 3 of 24 stated that the IP no. 3 to 6 have falsely and fraudulently claimed themselves as LR of fictitious person Chandgi and obtained forged and fabricated death certificate from the Sub registrar / Registrar of Birth & Death, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and same has been done by the IP no. 3 to 6 with the common intention to claim compensation. Hence, they are not entitle to any compensation whereas IP no. 2 is entitle to entire compensation.
5. In the claim filed by IP no. 3 it is stated that his grand uncle th Chandgi Ram was the bhumidhar of 1/4 share in the land in khasra no. 23/21(409), 39/1(416), 54(005) compensation of which sent by LAC. Sh. Chandgi had died on 08.12.01 and he was unmarried having no family and was residing in the joint family and was karta of the family and said Chandgi Ram had not executed any Will. It is further stated that said Chandgi had brother namely Kanhi Ram. Late Kanhi Ram had three sons namely lachman, Suraj Bhan and Dharam Singh. Sh. Dharam Singh had expired and he has only one son i.e. Mahender Singh/applicant. Whereas late Suraj Bhan has three sons LAC NO. 122B/08 4 of 24 namely Om Parkash, Jai Singh and Jai Kanwar. It is further stated that Sh. Rati Ram who is having half share in the property taken his half share and for the rest half share there th th are two share holders in the 1/4 share and other 1/4 share male descendants of late Kanhi Ram, Rati Ram put wrong objection in the share of Chandgi Ram.
6. Almost same facts as stated by the IP no. 3 in his claim was stated by the IP no. 4 to 7 in their claim, hence same is not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
7. IP no. 3 to 7 also filed joint reply to the claim of IP no. 2 in which they denied the contents of the claim of IP no. 2 and reiterated the contents which they have sated in their claim.
8. In respect to their claim first IP no. 3 to 7 led their evidence.
They have examined five witnesses i.e. IP37/W1 Sh. Gopi S/o Sh. Sukhdev, who led his evidence. IP37/W2 Sh. Om Prakash who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP37W2/A. IP37/W3 Sh. Mahender Singh who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP37W3/A. IP3 LAC NO. 122B/08 5 of 24 7/W4 Sh. Lachman who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP37W4/A. IP37/W5 Sh. Jai Singh who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP37W5/A.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of IP no. 2, three witness were examined. IP2W1 Sh. Jagdish who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W1/1. IP2W2 Sh. Kali Ram who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W2/1. IP2W3 Sh. Satnarain who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W3/A.
10. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1.
10.1 As apparent from the pleading of the parties and evidence produced by them, the land bearing khasra no.
23/21(409), 39/1(416), 54/26(005) has three sharer, Rati Ram IP no. 2 was recorded bhumidhar of 1/2 share th and IP no. 2 to 7 were recorded bhumidhar of 1/4 share th and remaining 1/4 share was recorded in the name of LAC NO. 122B/08 6 of 24 Chandgi S/o Jeetu. There is no dispute to the share 3/4 share recorded in the name of IP no. 2 to 7. The only th dispute is with respect to 1/4 share of late Chandgi Ram of which dispute is sent to this court. As claimed by the IP no. 2, Chandgi is non existent person and wrong entry has been made in the name of Chandgi Ram in the revenue record. On the other hand IP no. 3 to 6 are claiming that Chandgi was their uncle and died issue less, therefore being his LR they are entitle to receive compensation.
10.2 In a reference u/s 3031 of LA Act position of the parties as like petitioner, therefore parties have to prove their own case. First I shall discuss the evidence of IP no. 3 to 7 who are claiming to be LR of IP no. 1 Chandgi Ram and he was the brother of Sh. Kanhi Ram and Kanhi Ram was father of IP no. 3 and grandfather of IP no. 3 to
7. Therefore he was the uncle of IP no. 2 and grand uncle of IPN o. 3 to 7.
11. In support of their claim IP no. 3 to 7 have examined five LAC NO. 122B/08 7 of 24 witnesses. IP37/W1 Sh. Gopi is a native of the village Rohna District Sonepat, Haryana. He has deposed that he has come to give evidence about the family of Kandhram. He has further deposed that father's name of Kandhram was Nanak. Sh. Nanak had two children namely Kand Ram and Jeetu (regarding taking name of Jeetu, objection was taken by counsel for IP no. 2 that other witness has prompted to the witness to take name of Jeetu). He further deposed that he know the family as he is Jeeja of Lachman S/o Kand Ram (IP no. 4), Sh. Kand Ram had three sons namely lachman, Suraj Bhan and Dharme, Sh. Dharme had already expired and lachman is still alive but he does not know about the children of Sh. Suraj Bhan. He has further deposed that he has seen Chandgi who visited his house twice during his life time and Chandgi is missing and he came to know about missing of Chandgi 56 years back. He further deposed that Sh. Chandgi was a religious person and he used to visit Bohr Dera about 7 8 year earlier and Chandgi had land at 45 places namely Bagichiwala, Mudha and he is not aware about other places. He further deposed that Sh. Dharme, Suraj Bhan and lachman LAC NO. 122B/08 8 of 24 used to cultivate the land of Chandgi.
During the cross examination this witness has admitted that Kanha Ram had elder brother namely Amilal. He further deposed that he never took much interest in other relatives of Kanha Ram and does not know their names. However on the question whether he visited his in laws places in last eight year on any social occasion, any death or marriage in the family. He says that he do no recollect. Further he says that he came to know about the death of Chandgi, but he did not visit on that occasion.
11.1 IP37W2 Sh. Om Parkash (IP no. 5 himself), who has led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP3 7W2/A. In the affidavit he has deposed that his great grandfather Sh. Nanak had two sons namely Jeetu and Kanhi Ram. His grand father Kanhi Ram had three sons namely Dharam Singh, Suraj Bhan and lachman and his uncle Chandgi rarely remained in the village Sanoth as he become Sadhu which he heard from his deceased father and he himself never seen him in person and his uncle Chandgi died in December, 2001. He further LAC NO. 122B/08 9 of 24 stated that Late Chandgi remained in Village Dehra Dist. Panipat, Haryana and he came to know about the death of Chandgi through some villagers of Village Dehra. In the cross examination he states that his grandfather had no real brother and only one step brother i.e. Chandgi. He did not seen his grand father's brother. He further stated that Chandgi was related by consanguinity of his great grandmother. Further he denied the suggestion that there was no step brother of his grandfather in the name of Chandgi. He states that there exist a share of Chandgi in the ancestral residential house in village Sanoth, but he do not know whether the share of Chandgi is reflected in the record of the ancestral residential house maintained by Revenue Authority regarding Lal Dora area. Further he admitted that there is no person exists in the village of such age who can say having seen Chandgi. Further he admitted that he did not file any document while applying for death certificate of Chandgi that he has died. He further states that his great grand mother had relation with Jeetu, from LAC NO. 122B/08 10 of 24 whom Chandgi has taken birth and the relation of great grand mother was told by his uncle (then Dharam Pal), but he did not tell the name of his great grandmother. He denied the suggestion that land was cultivated by Sh. Rati Ram. Further he admitted that there exists one person in the family by the name of Ami Lal who was his grand father in relation but not real.
11.2 IP37W3 Sh. Mahender Singh (IP no. 6 himself) who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP3 7W3/A in which he repeated the same facts as deposed by IP37W2 in his evidence. During the cross examination he admitted that Sh. Om Parkash is his cousin and 1015 years older then him and he know better then him about the family. He further states that he has never seen Jeetu and Chandgi in person but only heart about them from his elders. Further he states that he has visited to Village Dehra in his childhood to meet his uncle Jai Chand who resides there and nobody except his uncle was staying in Village Dehra. He further states that he does not know the name of father of Jai LAC NO. 122B/08 11 of 24 Chand.
11.3 IP37W4 Lachman, who also led his examination in chief by way of affidavit and he has also deposed verbatim as deposed by IP37W2 in his examination in chief. In the cross examination he has stated that his is uncle (Tau) of Sh. Om Parkash IP37W2 and Gopi i.e. IP37W1 is his brother. He further deposed that his grand father Nanak had two sons namely Jeetu and Kandh Ram who are real brother by blood and share falling to the account of his grand father in the residential land fell in two equal shares of Jeetu and Kanhi Ram. He denied the suggestion that there is no son of Jeetu in the name of Chandgi. He admitted that Chandgi was never been in possession of the agricultural land in question. Further he states that he never visited Village Dehra and no person in his family visited Village Dehra. 11.4 IP37W5 Jai Singh also led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP37W3/A he has also deposed verbatim as deposed by IP37W2 in his examination in chief. In the cross examination he has stated that Om LAC NO. 122B/08 12 of 24 Parkash IP no. 5 is his elder brother and Om Parkash knows all affairs relating to the family history. He further states that Kanhi Ram was his grand father and further deposed about the relations of his grandfather with Jeetu and Chandgi as per the saying of his elders. He further deposed that there is no share of any other person in their ancestral residential house in village Sannoth except the legal heirs originating from his grand father Kand Ram i.e. LR Suraj Bhan, Dharam Singh and Lachman.
12. As far as claim of IP no. 2 is concerned, he has claimed that he was in possession of the land in question and wrong entry has been made in the revenue record, therefore, name of IP no. 3 to 7 remained till the land was acquired. To prove that same he has examined three witnesses.
12.1 IP2W1 Sh. Jagdish son of late Rati Ram who led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W1/1 in which he has deposed that he was impleaded as LR of IP no. 2 after the death of IP no. 2 and IP no. 2 LAC NO. 122B/08 13 of 24 remained in cultivatory possession for more than 60 years till the land was taken by the government. Further he submits that his deceased father and his family th including he cultivated the 3/4 of the acquired land and had grown crops namely rice, wheat, jawar and mustered which is duly reflected in the revenue record of khasra girdawaries for the year 199899 till 2004. He has also proved receipt issued by the revenue officials Ex. IP2W1/A to IP2W1/F. Further he has deposed that family of IP no. 2 always remained concerned with the th tilling of 3/4 of the acquired land and was not aware of the revenue record i.e. khatauni showing a wrong, illegal th and nonest entry of 1/4 of the same standing in the name of alleged Chandgi IP no. 1. He further deposed that there is no person with the name of Chandgi S/o Jeetu born in the family or such person exists in Village Sanoth and the said death certificate of Chandgi got by the IP no. 3 to 6 is forged and fabricated obtained by false information. In the cross examination he has admitted that Jai Lal was his grandfather but he has LAC NO. 122B/08 14 of 24 denied any relationship with Kanni Ram. Further he denied that Kanni Ram and Jai Lal were in halfhalf share as per revenue record. Further he has denied that his deceased father has already received half share of the acquired land. Further he has denied that Kanni Ram gifted half share of the land to Sh. Jeetu. He also denied that half share was mutated in the name of Jeetu S/o Chandgi.
12.2 IP2W2 is Kali Ram who has also led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W2/1. He has deposed that he is the native of the village Sanoth and also possessed agriculture land in village Sanoth which is in the vicinity of acquired land and he found deceased Rati Ram and his sons cultivating the said land leaving only a small portion of the same. He further states that he did not know any person Jeetu or his son Chandgi ever born in he family of Kanhi Ram. In the cross examination he has admitted that he know the family history of Rati Ram upto his grand father, he was son of Jai Lal and Jai Lal was son of Lekh Ram beyond this he did not have any LAC NO. 122B/08 15 of 24 knowledge about the predecessor of deceased Rati Ram. He further deposed that he has seen Kand Ram and also heard the name of his father as Nanak but he do not know whether he married twice. Further he states that he does not know whether Kand Ram accepted Jeetu as his brother, it might be possible that Jeetu might have been son of his second wife and he has first time heard that Nanak has married twice and Jeetu was accepted as brother by Kand Ram. He further states that he does not know whether Nanak and Mahra were real brother and son of Aasa and both Nanak and Mahra half share each in the ancestor land. He further states that Nanak's second wife was residing in the village Dehra Dist. Ashurbanipal. He further deposed that he does not know whether name of Jeetu was recorded in the revenue record as owner after acceptance of brother by Kand Ram. Further he has denied the suggestion that Kand Ram has given half share of the land to the Jeetu who was borne in Lohar community. Further he states that he does not know Jeetu was borne in village LAC NO. 122B/08 16 of 24 Dhera and after his birth he came at Village Sanoth. Further he stated that Kand Ram land was less due to the fact that he has sold most of his share of land. He do not know the name of Jeetu was recorded in the revenue record in the y ear 1923.
12.3 IP2W3 Satnarain who also led his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. IP2W3/A. Though in the heading of affidavit it is mentioned that affidavit of Kali Ram. In his evidence he has deposed the same facts as deposed by IP2W2, hence same is not repeated for the sake of brevity. In his cross examination this witness has deposed that he knows both the family of Kand Ram and Rati Ram. That Kand Ram had three sons and Rati Ram had four sons. He has admitted that ancestor of Kand Ram and Rati Ram were same. He denied the suggestion that land of the Kand Ram and Rati Ram was equal, Kand Ram has sold his land before acquisition. Share of Kandram was cultivated by Laxman and Rati Ram was cultivating his own share and Rati Ram had received the compensation of his land. He further LAC NO. 122B/08 17 of 24 deposed that he know that Rati Ram had 75 bigha land. Further he stats that family of Kand Ram had taken th compensation of 1/4 share of the land in question. Further he denied that he has no knowledge whether Nanak had married twice. Further he denied that Nanak S/o Jeetu had one son Chandgi and as per his knowledge no person Jeetu reside in the village Sanoth. He denied the suggestion that he has enmity with Kand Ram family.
13. From the evidence led by both the parties it proves that the ancestor of both IP no. 2 and 3 to 7 were common. But it is not proved who was their common ancestor. From the evidence led by parties, it is evident that father of Jai Lal was Lekh Ram and father of IP no. 4 was Kanhi Ram and Kanhi Ram was the son of Nanak. But who were their predecessor, nobody knows. But it is evident that the joint land was partitioned prior to their great grandfather Lekh Ram and Nanak, as no party had led any evidence when it was partitioned. As far as contention of Ld. counsel for Ipn o. 2 that Chandgi was non existence person LAC NO. 122B/08 18 of 24 and wrong entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1947. Onus was on the IP no. 2 to prove that wrong entry was made in the name of Chandgi and no such person exist. But IP no. 2 has failed to explain why he or his ancestor had not filed any case for correction of entry since year 1947 when alleged entry in the name of Chandgi was made in the revenue record. In fact IP no. 2 has produced no document to prove that entry in the name of Chandgi was made in the year 1947. He has not led any evidence prior to year 1947 that land was recorded in his ancestor's name. Hence, on the basis of oral testimoney of IP no. 2, it is not proved that wrong entry was made in the name of Chandgi and he is a fictitious person. It cannot be ruled out that Chandgi may be resident of some other Village than Sanoth.
14. Now coming to the next contention that IP no. 2 or his ancestor were in possession of the land since last 60 years. In my view the best proof of possession is the khasra girdawari. IP no. 2 has proved khasra girdawari for the year 199899 to 200304 Ex. IP2W1/A to Ex. IP2W1/F. On perusal of same it is evident LAC NO. 122B/08 19 of 24 that in the column of bhumidhar name of Dharam Singh, th Laxman sons of Kani Ram 1/6 part, Rati Ram son of Jai Lal ½ th part, Chandgi S/o Jeetu 1/4 part, Om Parkash, Jai Singh, Jai th Kanwar, sons of Suraj Bhan 1/12 part has been shown. Since remark column is blank, therefore presumption arise that all the bhumidhar were in possession of their respective share. As far as land of Chandgi IP no. 1 is concerned, since nobody has been shown in adverse possession of the land, therefore it is to be presumed that the said land was either not cultivated by anyone or it was cultivated by all the other bhumidhar i.e. IP no. 2 to 7 and not IP no. 2 alone. Therefore I held that IP no. 2 has failed to prove that he was in exclusive cultivatory possession th of the 1/4 share of which dispute has been sent.
15. Now coming to the claim of IP no. 3 to 7 that Chandgi was their great grandfather brother, I am agree with the contention of Ld. counsel for IP no. 2 that evidence led by the IP No. 3 to 7 are self contradictory and cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the evidence led by IP no. 3 to 7 it is evident that witnesses are themselves are not sure what relation Chandgi or his father LAC NO. 122B/08 20 of 24 Jeetu had with Kand Ram @ Kanhi Ram, who is father of IP no. 4 and grandfather of Ipn o. 3 and 5 to 7. Sh. Gopi IP37W1 who is brother in law of IP no. 4 has stated in the examination in chief that Kand Ram and Jeetu were the two son of Nanak but in the cross examination, Gopi has stated that Sh. Kand Ram had elder brother Amilal. Hence, testimony of Gopi Ram is self contradictory. He has deposed that he used to visit Amilal and his son and besides that he did not take interest in other relatives of Kanhi Ram but he has not explained if Amilal is brother of Kand Ram then Jeetu can be his brother as Kand Ram has only one brother. It appears he has taken the name of Jeetu on the prompting of IP no. 3 to 7 (as observation recorded by my Ld. Predecessor in his examination in chief). Hence, I do not find testimony of IP37W1 reliable that Jeetu was brother of Kanhi Ram.
16. IP no. 3 to 7 also in their claim and examination in chief have stated that Jeetu is real brother of Kand Ram. But in cross examination IP no. 5 Om Parkash had taken different stand that Jeetu was step brother of Kand Ram as he was born out of LAC NO. 122B/08 21 of 24 illicit relation of great grandmother. Whereas IP no. 5 Lachman (IP37W4) stated that Jeetu and Kand Ram were real brother by blood. Counsel for IP no. 3 to 7 had also taken different stand as he has given suggestion during cross examining of Sh. Kali Ram IP2W2 that Jeetu (father of Chandgi) was born in Lohar Community and only Kanhi Ram accepted him as his th brother and gave 1/4 share of his land. Another suggestion he gave to the IP2W2 that Nanak had married twice and Jeetu is son of other wife. Hence, it is evidence that IP No. 3 to 7 are themselves not sure what relation they have with Jeetu, father of Chandgi. Therefore, I find the story stated by IP no. 3 to 7 unreliable. No documentary proof has been produced by IP no. 3 to 7 who was the father of Jeetu. If the land was recorded in the name of Chandgi then he must have taken the land from his father Jeetu being ancestor land, therefore in the previous khatoni father name of Jeetu would have been mentioned. In such circumstances I held that IP no. 3 to 7 have failed to prove that Chandgi was their grandfather or they have any relations with him.
LAC NO. 122B/08 22 of 24
17. Further IP no. 3 to 7 has also failed to prove that they were in exclusive possession of acquired land as they have also not produced any khasra girdawari showing their possession in the acquired land, whereas from khasra girdawari produced by IP no. 2 Ex. IP2W1/A to Ex.IP2W1/F only it is proved that all the IPs were in possession of their respective share and no IP has been able to prove that he was in possession of land which comes in the share of Chandgi. Hence, I held that IP no. 3 to 7 also failed to prove that they have any right, title or interest in the acquired land. Since IP no. 2 has failed to prove that wrong entry was made in the name of Chandgi in revenue record or he was exclusive possession of acquired land. Therefore, I held that all the IPs have failed to prove that they have any right, title or interest in the land in question. It cannot be ruled out that there might be one person Chandgi who had either died long back or has left the village without leaving any legal heir, therefore as per Section 29 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which says that if a person died intestate and has left no heir qualified to succeed his or her property such property devolve to Government, therefore Government will be entile to LAC NO. 122B/08 23 of 24 compensation. Hence, compensation of the acquired land is given to the Government though Collector. Hence, compensation of the acquired land is returned back to the LAC to deposit the same in the Government account. Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
18. ISSUE NO. 2.
In view of the above findings of issue no. 1, IP no. 2 to 7 are not entitle to any compensation and the compensation of the acquired land which is in the name of Chandgi is returned back to the LAC to deposit the same in the State account
19. Reference is answered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 04.08.2011 (SANJEEV KUMAR) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE01 ROHINI COURTS, DELHI LAC NO. 122B/08 24 of 24