Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 August, 2019
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 14th August, 2019.
+ CS(OS) 109/2009
SOHAN LAL & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Rajat Navet and Mr. Kushagra
Pandit, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S. Akhtar,
Advs. for D-1/UOI.
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Aman
Yadav, Advs. for D-2/AAI.
Mr. Subrat Deb and Mr. Sujeet
Kumar, Advs. for D-3/DDA.
Mr. S.K. Rout and Mr. Aman
Mehrotra, Advs. for D-13,15,16&17.
Mr. Anil Tomar, E.A.(A), Director of
Punchayats.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The ten plaintiffs, of which five are the sons of Yad Ram and the
other five are sons of Udey Ram, instituted this suit in the Court of the
Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, (i) for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to
(a) 500 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1242; (b) 2/3 rd share in 150 sq. yds. of
land in Khasra No.1210; (c) 302 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1238/2 and
1238/3; and, (d) 1/3rd share in 78 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1243, i.e.
total land admeasuring 928 sq. yds., in Village Nangal Dewat, Delhi and
entitled to allotment of alternate plot in lieu thereof; (ii) permanent
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 1 of 15
injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 Union of India (Land
Acquisition Collector), Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the
said land till allotment of alternate plot; and, (iii) mandatory injunction
directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to make allotment of alternate land to the
plaintiffs.
2. Besides the defendants No.1 to 3 aforesaid, defendants No.4 and 5,
being the sons of Changdi Ram, defendants No.6 to 10 being legal
representatives (LRs) of Changdi Ram and defendants No.11 to 17 being
LRs of Surat Ram, were also impleaded as defendants. Vide order dated
19th July, 2016, Director of Panchayats (GNCTD) has also been impleaded
as defendant No.18.
3. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to set out the factual position.
4. On 28th April, 1972, Notification under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for acquisition of land at village Nangal Dewat, for purposes of
expansion of Indira Gandhi International Airport, was issued. Writ petitions
were filed in this Court challenging the said acquisition. Vide a consent
order in the said writ petitions, apart from compensation to be paid for
acquired lands, those who would be uprooted from their homes, were agreed
to be provided alternative land for their residence.
5. This court in the aforesaid litigation, with the consent of the parties,
devised a scheme for allotment of alternative land and a Nodal Officer was
appointed for preparing the list of persons eligible for allotment of alternate
land and for deciding the objections to the list of eligible persons so drawn
up and guidelines framed for determining the eligibility.
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 2 of 15
6. Objections to the list so prepared by the Nodal Officer, including by
filing fresh writ petitions, were preferred by a large number of persons.
7. Finally, vide judgment dated 30th May, 2007 reported as Airports
Authority of India Vs. Karan Singh 141 (2007) DLT 277, while disposing
of the matters, it was inter alia held that no further petitions challenging the
orders of the Nodal Officer or by persons who never filed their claims
before the Nodal Officer would thereafter be entertained, either by this
Court or by the Civil Court. It was reasoned, that all the claimants belonged
to the same village Nangal Dewat and the litigation had been on since 1982
and it was inconceivable that any resident of the village would have been
unaware of the pendency of the proceedings and the claims filed by the
residents of that village. It was further reasoned that time limit had been set
in the guidelines for the Nodal officer to entertain claims and it had been
made clear that no further claims beyond the time set in the order dated 26 th
August, 2004 would be entertained; however, even thereafter the Court had
permitted some claims to be filed before the Nodal officer; however all
claims must come to an end at some stage and the time limit cannot be open
ended, to enable the fence sitters to take a chance, after watching the
outcome of the petitions filed by the others. It was recorded that this Court
did not want to encourage this. It was felt that if the Court continued to
interfere with the orders of the Nodal Officer, others similarly situated, who
had not approached the Court, may want similar relief. It was clarified that
the relief being granted in some of the petitions was confined to the petitions
covered by that judgment and would not result in re-opening the claims of
others who had not challenged the order of the Nodal Officer till then. It
was reasoned, that the award of acquisition was made in 1986 and till
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 3 of 15
August, 2001, the petitions were pending in the Court and the petitions
which were decided were being heard from December, 2006 onwards and
that in these circumstances, it was impossible to believe that other residents
of the village were not aware of the pendency of the cases before the writ
Court and the writ Court was thus not prepared to entertain those petitions
which had been filed at a very late stage. It was thus ordered that no further
petitions challenging the order of the Nodal officer would be entertained and
that this approach was necessary keeping in view the time bound directions
the Court had made earlier.
8. It is thereafter that the present suit was filed.
9. It is informed that some other persons had also filed similar suits
before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi and in some of such suits, interim
orders were also passed; Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), to
whom AAI leased out the Airport, being affected by such interim orders,
filed CM(M) No.564/2007 in this Court and vide order dated 24th April,
2007, all the said suits including this suit, were directed to be requisitioned
to this Court. It is also informed that vide subsequent order dated 31 st July,
2017 in CM(M) No.564/2007, all the requisitioned suits were ordered to be
listed before the Hon‟ble Judge who had passed the judgment in Airports
Authority of India Vs. Karan Singh supra; however owing to change of
Roster, the Judge who had passed the said judgment was not presiding over
the writ Court and the Judge who was then presiding the writ Court, vide
order dated 1st December, 2008 in CM(M) No.1066/2007, directed all the
requisitioned suits to be registered as Original Civil Suits before this Court.
This is how this suit is before this Court.
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 4 of 15
10. This suit came up before the undersigned on 18th July, 2019 for
framing of issues, when on enquiry, the counsel for defendant AAI handed
over the order dated 30th November, 2017 of the undersigned in CS(OS)
No.130/2009 titled Balwan Singh Vs. International Airport Authority of
India Limited & Ors. Being of the opinion that since the issue for
determination in the suit was only "whether the plaintiffs were entitled to
alternate land in terms of the scheme drawn up by this Court and had not
been allotted the said land" and being further of the opinion that no evidence
is required in the suit and the suit can be decided after hearing the counsels,
the suit was posted for such hearing for today.
11. The counsel for the plaintiffs, the counsel for the defendant AAI, the
counsel for defendant Land Acquisition Collector, UOI and the counsel for
defendant DDA have been heard.
12. The case of the plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint, is (i) that the
predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs namely Yad Ram and Udey Ram,
on 22nd July, 1961 purchased a piece of land measuring 500 sq. yds., by a
registered Sale Deed; (ii) that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs
exchanged the said 500 sq. yds. of land for land measuring 500 sq. yds. in
Khasra No.1221 of Changdi Ram and constructed a house thereon and were
in joint possession thereof; (iii) that the predecessors-in-interest of the
plaintiffs, besides the aforesaid land, were also in joint possession of land ad
measuring 220 sq. yds. in Khasra No.1199 and land ad measuring 151 sq.
yds in Khasra No.1210; (iv) that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs
were also allotted plots No.5 and 6 measuring 3 biswas each out of land
comprised in Khasra Nos.1238/2 and 1238/3; (v) that in the survey
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 5 of 15
conducted by the Nodal Officer in the year 1972, the compensation of
structure existing on Khasra No.1221 was assessed in favour of the
plaintiffs, while the land underneath the said structure was shown in the
account of the defendants no. 4 to 10 and in lieu whereof the defendants
no.4 to 10 were allotted alternate plot; (vi) that allotment of alternate plots of
64 sq. mtrs. and 26 sq. mtrs. in Plots No.53-B and 79-A was recommended
in the name of Yad Ram and Udey Ram respectively, being the predecessors
of the plaintiffs; and, (vii) that as per the scheme drawn up by this Court, the
plaintiffs no.1 to 5 are entitled to get alternate plot of 450 sq. mtrs. and
plaintiffs no.6 to 10 are also entitled to allotment of alternate plot of 450 sq.
mtrs. and which has been denied to them.
13. The counsel for the plaintiffs has additionally argued, (i) that the
plaintiffs have not taken possession of the alternate land ad measuring 64
sq. mtrs. and 26 sq. mtrs. recommended to be allotted to them; (ii) that 500
sq. yds. of land which the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs had
purchased vide a registered Sale Deed was situated within the Lal Dora (old
abadi) of village Nagal Dewat; (iii) that there are no revenue records of Lal
Dora area; (iv) the 500 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1221 which the
predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs received in exchange of 500 sq. yds.
purchased vide Sale Deed, was situated in extended abadi area, of which
land records are maintained; (v) that as per the scheme, while the allotment
of alternate plot in lieu of lands situated within the Lal Dora was on the
basis of possession thereof, the allotment of alternate plot in lieu of lands
situated in the extended abadi area was on the basis of entries in the revenue
record; (vi) that since the plaintiffs, though owners vide registered Sale
Deed of 500 sq. yds. of land within the Lal Dora were owners thereof, but
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 6 of 15
owing to the exchange aforesaid, at the contemporaneous time were not in
possession thereof; (vii) similarly though the plaintiffs were in possession of
the 500 sq. yds. in the extended abadi area but their names were not entered
in the revenue records; (viii) the plaintiffs, in this manner, have been
deprived of alternate land in lieu of the said 500 sq. yds. of land; (ix) that the
claim of the plaintiffs for the other plot of 450 sq. mtrs. is in lieu of land ad
measuring 302 sq. yds. in Khasra No.1238/2 and 1238/3 which was allotted
by the Gram Sabha to the community of Harijans and the said community
had allotted 302 sq. yds. of the said land to the predecessors-in-interest of
the plaintiffs; and, (x) that the plaintiffs have been declined alternate land in
lieu of the said 302 sq. yds. of land on the ground of the land having been
allotted by the Gram Sabha to the community and not because the plaintiffs
were not found in possession of the said land; attention is drawn by the
counsel for the plaintiffs to the order dated 17 th November, 2006 of the
Nodal Officer in this regard at page 62 to 66 of Part-III A file.
14. The counsel for the plaintiffs, on enquiry, has also stated that under
the scheme, compensation for acquisition was to be awarded to those not
taking alternate land and since the plaintiffs have been seeking alternate
land, they have also not been paid compensation for their land which has
been acquired.
15. The counsel for the plaintiffs has contended, that the plaintiffs, in
equity and justice, are entitled to alternate land for their land which has been
acquired and have neither received compensation nor alternate land.
16. The counsel for the defendant AAI has drawn attention to undated
Order No.112/2004 at page 61 of Part-III A file. However the counsels are
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 7 of 15
ad idem that the said order is of prior to the order dated 17th November,
2006 supra of the Nodal Officer.
17. In the Order No.112/2004, on the application of the plaintiffs in
pursuance to the order in CWP No.481/1982, the Nodal Officer has
found/observed (i) that the land ad measuring 18 biswas in Khasra
No.1238/2 and Khasra No.1238/3 was recorded in the common name of
Ahle Harijanan; that wherever the intention of the Gram Sabha was to allot
the land to the individual in their own name, even to the landless persons of
the village, the Gram Sabha had categorically and specifically allotted the
land in the specific individual names, as in the case of Khasra No.1236; in
the instant case, the entry in the revenue record has been made in the name
Ahle Harijanan and wherefrom it appeared that the land was not allotted to
the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and was kept reserved for
common utility purpose for the community as a whole; (ii) thus the claim of
the plaintiffs for alternate land in lieu thereof could not be accepted; (iii) that
the heirs of Changdi Ram had raised objections to the claim of the plaintiffs
for alternate land in lieu of land in Khasra No.1221 which was recorded in
the name of Changdi Ram; (iv) that the plaintiffs had been unable to
produce the original Sale Deed in their favour with respect to 500 sq. yds. of
land within the Lal Dora; and,(v) thus the claim of the plaintiffs for alternate
land in lieu of land in Khasra No.1221 could not be accepted.
18. The counsel for the defendant AAI has also handed over a copy of
Bhoop Singh Vs. DDA 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1470 (DB), wherein (i) the
challenge to the scheme framed was negated, reasoning that in the absence
of any legal right to claim alternative plots, it was for the Government to
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 8 of 15
decide to what extent and on what basis it wanted to rehabilitate those
persons whose name appeared in the list of the year 1958, despite the fact
that they had no legal right to obtain alternative plots from the Government
by way of their rehabilitation; (ii) it was held that unless it is shown that the
criteria laid down by the government was irrational, arbitrary or
discriminatory, the Court would not be justified in interfering with the
decision taken by the government in this regard; (iii) it was found that there
was nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in the government deciding to
rehabilitate only those persons who were occupying the community land,
not only in the year 1958 but also in the year 2007; the purpose being to
rehabilitate only those who continued to occupy the aforesaid land
throughout since the time it was divided amongst the members of the
community; (iv) it was observed that the Government of India was not
unjustified in deciding not to allot alternative plots to those who had already
parted with possession of the community land to others by way of sale,
transfer or in some other manner; (v) it was reasoned that such persons
having already taken advantage of the community land by selling or
transferring it to outsiders, these persons cannot be allowed to derive yet
another advantage from the same community land by way of allotment of
alternative plots; (vi) as regards the persons who did not appear in the list of
1958, it was stated that since these persons did not possess the community
land at the time it was divided amongst its members, they cannot claim
allotment of alternative plots on the strength of acquisition of the
community land from those who were occupying the said land in the year
1958.; (vii) with regard to those who moved to another area by the time
survey/inspection was carried out in June--July, 2007, it was observed that
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 9 of 15
the government was justified in denying the alternative plots to such persons
who were no more in need of rehabilitation; (viii) it was noted that there was
no revenue record in respect of Lal Dora (abadi) though even the land
comprised in Lal Dora (abadi) had been acquired; the survey was, therefore,
necessary to record details of the persons in occupation of the land and
structures constructed thereon, for the purpose of payment of compensation
as, to the extent the land is comprised in Lal Dora (abadi), the possession is
considered equivalent to ownership; and, (ix) it was further noted that on the
other hand, as regards the land comprised in extended abadi, the revenue
record being available, it is only such record which indicates the ownership
of the land; no compensation for land was paid to the persons occupying the
community land in extended abadi since such land belonged to and was
owned by Gram Sabha - they were given compensation only in respect of
structures, trees and the improvements.
19. The counsel for the defendant AAI has thus contended that as per the
dicta of the Division Bench aforesaid in Bhoop Singh also, the plaintiffs
have been rightly denied the alternate plot in lieu of 500 sq. yds. of land of
which the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs held Sale Deed, inasmuch
as the plaintiffs were admittedly not in possession thereof and inasmuch as
the land in possession of the plaintiffs in Khasra No.1221 of extended abadi
admittedly was not recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the revenue
records.
20. Similarly the plaintiffs have been rightly denied alternate land in lieu
of Khasra No.1238/2 and 1238/3 which was admittedly community land.
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 10 of 15
21. The counsel for the defendant DDA has contended that DDA has
delivered possession of whatsoever land was recommended to be allotted.
22. The counsel for the plaintiffs, in rejoinder has contended (i) that the
heirs of Changdi Ram who had earlier filed objections as noted in the order
dated 17th November, 2006 of the Nodal Officer, have in this proceeding
filed no objection to allotment of alternate land in lieu of land in Khasra
No.1221 to the plaintiffs; (ii) that in the minutes of the meeting held on 24 th
July, 2007, copy of which has been received under Right to Information Act,
2005 only in the year 2015 and copy of which is handed over and is taken on
record, the plaintiffs are entitled to be allotted land in lieu of Khasra
No.1238/2 and 1238/3; and, (iii) that for the community land, people who
were in the original list of 1958 as well as in possession in the survey in
2007, have been given alternate land and the plaintiffs though figured in the
1958 list but do not figure in the 2007 list are covered by the categories
drawn up in the minutes of meeting held on 24th July, 2007.
23. The counsel for defendant AAI has contended that „no objection‟
today of the heirs of Changdi Ram is of no avail and is mala fide. It is
contended that as per the scheme, the maximum size of alternate plot which
could be allotted had been kept and the heirs of Changdi Ram, after being
allotted the maximum size, if possessed of more land at the time of
acquisition, are not entitled to alternate land in lieu thereof and are now not
entitled to any alternate plot, to which they may give the NOC to the
plaintiffs. It is also contended that the minutes of the meeting of 24th July,
2007 were considered in Bhoop Singh supra. Attention in this regard is
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 11 of 15
drawn to para 3 of the said judgment. It is thus contended that on the basis
of the said minutes no allotment can be sought by the plaintiffs.
24. Para 3 of the judgment supra in Bhoop Singh refers to the meeting
held on 14th March, 2007. There is no express reference to the meeting or
minutes of the meeting of 24th July, 2007. The counsel for the defendant
AAI however contends that in the said meeting of 24th July, 2007 the
recommendations made in the meeting of 14th March, 2007 were merely
accepted.
25. I have considered the rivals contentions.
26. As would be evident from the above, the claim of the plaintiffs is on
the basis of possession of land in Khasra No.1221 of extended abadi of
which the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs came in possession of in
exchange for the land ad measuring 500 sq. yds in Lal Dora purchased vide
registered Sale Deed. However in Bhoop Singh supra it has categorically
been held that while allotment of alternate plot in lieu of land situated within
the Lal Dora was on the basis of possession, the allotment of land in lieu of
land in extended abadi was on the basis of revenue records. The plaintiffs
were admittedly not in possession of any land within the Lal Dora even
though they claim ownership by way of a registered Sale Deed and were
also admittedly not having any land within the extended abadi in their own
names. Thus the question of entitlement of the plaintiffs to alternate land on
the said basis does not arise and no error can be found with the reasoning of
the Nodal Officer declining alternative allotment in lieu thereof. No
evidence is required to be recorded for determination of the said entitlement
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 12 of 15
claimed in the suit. It is not even the argument that any evidence is required
to be led.
27. The only other entitlement to alternate land claimed in the suit is in
lieu of land in Khasra No.1238/2 and 1238/3. As per dicta in Bhoop Singh
supra, the plaintiffs, being admittedly not in possession of any land in the
said Khasra numbers in the year 2007, are not entitled thereto as well.
28. It only remains to be examined, whether the plaintiffs have any
entitlement or which is required to be determined by requiring evidence, in
terms of the minutes of the meeting held on 24 th July, 2007 and which are
not disputed by the defendant AAI also.
29. Para 4 of the said minutes, under clause (ii) whereof the plaintiffs
claim entitlement, refers to a list prepared of persons found in possession of
vacant plots for land "in other Khasra number" prepared an Annexure-C of
the report of survey in June/July, 2007. The clauses of para 4, including
clause (ii) on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the plaintiffs, are
with respect to the said Annexure-C only. Annexure-C is however not
available, neither with the counsel for the plaintiffs nor with the counsel for
the defendants. It is significant that the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is
also not on the basis of the said list; rather the suit is found to have been
instituted on 31st January, 2007 i.e. prior to the minutes of the meeting held
on 24th July, 2007.
30. It cannot be lost sight of that this proceeding is a suit and trial
whereof is confined to the parameters of pleadings thereof. Though the suit
has been pending for the last 12 years, but the plaintiffs have not claimed
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 13 of 15
any amendment to the plaint to claim the reliefs on the basis of minutes of
the meeting dated 24th July, 2007. The said minutes were also admittedly
received by the plaintiffs under cover of letter dated 12th August, 2015, more
than four years back and thereafter also no steps have been taken. Thus the
need to keep the suit pending for the purpose of argument urged today for
the first time by handing over in the Court a copy of the minutes of the
meeting dated 24th July, 2007, is not felt.
31. A plaintiff, in a suit, cannot be permitted fishing and roving enquiry,
by merely contending that it is the defendant who is in possession of all the
records and throwing the onus on the defendant. It was for the plaintiffs
here, to establish a case for entitlement to alternate land under the scheme
framed under the directions of this Court and the plaintiffs, on the pleadings
are unable to make out even a semblance of a case of, the decision of the
Nodal Office declining alternative plot to the plaintiffs, being contrary to the
scheme in any case. As has been held by the Division Bench, outside the
scheme, the plaintiffs have no right.
32. There is merit also in the contention of the counsel for the defendant
AAI that even though the minutes of 24th July, 2007 are not expressly
mentioned in Bhoop Singh supra but the said judgment being of 16th April,
2013 and all the relevant records being available to the Division Bench, this
Court in any case is bound by the findings returned by the Division Bench
and as per which, the plaintiffs admittedly having not been found in
possession in June/July, 2007, are not entitled to alternate plot in lieu of 302
sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1238/2 and 1238/3.
CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 14 of 15
33. The suit is thus dismissed.
34. However I refrain from imposing any costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 14, 2019 „bs/pp‟ CS(OS) 109/2009 Page 15 of 15