Delhi District Court
Lac No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union ... vs . Dina Nath & Ors. 1/15 on 8 October, 2016
THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 16A/10/07
New No. LAC-29/16
UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector
(District West) office at D.C. Office
Rampura, Delhi-110035.
versus
1. Sh. Dinanath (deceased)
Through LRs:
(a). Smt. Sheela Malik W/o Late Dinanath
(b). Sh. Rajeev Malik S/o Late Dinanath
(c). Sh. Shantanu Malik S/o Late Dinanath
(d). Sh. Pardeep Malik S/o Late Dinanath
All R/o Minerva Hotel, Red Sequar Market,
Hissar (Haryana).
(e). Ms. Kavita Khattar D/o Late Dinanath
W/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Khattar
R/o WZ-2178, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034.
(f). Ms. Rita Wadhwa D/o Late Dinanath
W/o Sh. Surender Wadhwa
R/o House No. 220, Sector-20A,
Chandigarh, HR.
(g). Ms. Seema D/o Late Dinanath
W/o Sh. Gulshan Takkar
R/o 82/2, Govind Puri, Kalka Ji,
Delhi-110019.
2. Sh. Suraj Mal S/o Sh. Mir Singh
R/o Village Mundka, Delhi.
3. Sh. Sukhbir Singh
S/o late Mir Singh
R/o Village Mundka,
Delhi.
....Interested persons
LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 1/15
Award No. : 3/DCW/05-06
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 27.01.2006
Date of institution of the case : 18.01.2008
Date of reserving of judgment : 28.09.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.10.2016
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The present reference referred by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector (West)' under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect of award no. 03/DC(W)/2005-2006, in respect of Item No. 90 as per Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.19,61,780/-. The interested parties are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all Interesting parties.
3. The amount of compensation sent by the Collector (West) has already been deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the shape of fixed deposit with the instructions to renew the same on year to year basis as per order dated 22.12.2007 by Ld. Predecessor.
4. IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath filed claim. In brief facts are that land bearing Khasra no. 5//10/2 and 6//6/1 total measuring 3 Bigha 13 Biswas at the time of notification under LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 2/15 Section 4 and 6 of L.A. Act and at the time of acquisition, physical possession was taken over from the IP No.1, recorded owner. It is stated that IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath purchased the land in question from one Sh. Suraj Mal, vide registered sale deed and since then was in the possession till acquisition. The land was also mutated in favour of IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath. The compensation is also assessed in the name of IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath. It is further stated that IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh never remained in possession and has no right, title or interest in the land in question. IP No. 3 Sh.Sukhbir Singh has already received compensation of Rs.27,94,865/- and now become greedy.
5. It is stated that IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal has inherited the land in question being male lineal descendant of the family and a civil suit was filed by IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh against the mutation order dated 19.07.1979 along with one Smt. Brahmo. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before Financial Commissioner and same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.1987. Another civil suit was filed against the mutation order dated 19.07.1979, which was highly time barred and civil court was not having the jurisdiction. The remedy lies in the shape of appeal under Section 64 and 65 of Delhi Land Reforms Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction.
6. It is stated that IP No. 1 being the bonafide purchaser and owner/Bhumidhar in possession of the land in question. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh now wants to create confusion that the land has been inherited from Smt. Manno and step son Sh. Suraj Mal has no right of inheritance. It is LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 3/15 stated that IP No. 1 has no relation with respect to the land of Smt. Manno. IP No. 1 seeks that compensation of Rs.19,61,780/- may be awarded in his favour.
7. Claim filed by IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh. In brief, it is stated that the land bearing Khasra no. 5/10/2 (2-16) and 6/6/1 (0-17) in all measuring (3-13) at the time of notification under Section 4 and 6 and at the time of acquisition was wrongly recorded in the name of IP No.1 Sh. Dina Nath as per illegal transfer by IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal despite stay was in operation.
8. It is stated that IP no.2 Sh.Suraj Mal and IP no.3 are the son of late Sh. Mir Singh. However, both were having different mothers. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir born out of wedlock between Sh. Mir Singh and second wife Smt. Manno. Sh. Mir Singh married to her after the death of her first husband Sh. Bharte in the year 1944. Deceased Sh.Bharte was also having two wives, therefore, after his death, the land owned by him devolved upon two wives, namely, Smt. Nante and Smt. Manno in equal shares. Consequently, Smt. Manno succeeded land measuring 8 Bigha 2 Biswa from her first husband Sh. Bharte at the time of second marriage with Sh.Mir Singh. She was declared Bhumidhar at the time of commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act on 20.07.1954 being the proprietor.
9. It is stated that Smt. Manno died in the year 1956 and after her death IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir succeeded to her Bhudmidhari holdings being the only male lineal descendant. IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal did not succeed an inch as he was not LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 4/15 the real son but step son. It is further stated that Smt. Manno had a daughter, namely, Smt. Birmo from first marriage with Sh. Bharte, who was alive in the year 1956 but she did not succeed the Bhumidhari holding rights according to provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. She had also made statement before Tehsildar regarding relinquishing her rights in favour of IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir.
10. It is stated that in the year 1975 and 1976 Consolidation of holding operation commenced in the revenue estate of village Mundka and application for mutation was filed for substitution of names of legal heirs of late Smt. Manno before Consolidation Officer but Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.12.1979 illegally sanctioned mutation in favour of IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir in equal shares. IP No. 3 being aggrieved by the illegal mutation order filed a revision petition before the financial commissioner, who wrongly dismissed the same. Therefore, a civil suit for declaration seeking that mutation order sanctioned by Consolidation Officer dated 19.12.1979 be declared as null and void without conferring any right, title or interest in favour of IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal. The said suit is pending for disposal. An interim stay order dated 19.01.1988 was in favour of IP No. 3 from the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, the then Ld. Sub Judge, Delhi, whereby IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal was restrained from creating any third party interest.
11. It is stated that on account of pendency of Consolidation proceedings, IP No.2 took the advantage and created third party interest by execution of a sale deed in favour of IP No.1. The sale is in contravention of order dated LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 5/15 19.09.1988 and a contempt petition was also filed against the IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal by IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh. It is stated that IP No. 3 is only entitled for entire compensation of land in question measuring 3 Bigha 13 Biswa. Neither IP No.1 nor IP No. 2 are entitled to a single penny of compensation. IP No. 3 seeks the compensation of entire amount of Rs.11,93,854.15.
12. IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal filed reply to the claim of IP no.3. In the preliminary submissions, it is stated that the claim of IP No. 3 is sheer abuse of process of law and without any cause of action. The IP No. 3 has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the most material facts. It is stated that land in question belonged to one Sh. Ran Singh, common ancestor, who had five sons, namely, Mir Singh, Narain Singh, Surat Singh, Chottu and Bharte. Three legal heirs have died issueless. Initially Smt. Manno married to Sh. Narain Singh and after his death, she married to Sh.Bharte, who was already married. Sh. Bharte had two wives Smt. Manno and Smt. Bhagwani. IP No.3 is the son of Sh. Mir Singh and second wife Smt. Manno whereas IP No. 2 is the son of Sh. Mir Singh and first wife Smt. Bhagwani.
13. It is stated that in view of Delhi Land Reforms Act, late Sh. Bharte was survived by two widows, namely, Smt.Nanhi and Smt. Manno, who inherited share of Sh. Bharte after his death and consequently, declared Bhumidhar of 1/3rd share to the extent of 1/6th share in each joint holding after the death of Sh. Bharte. Smt. Manno had remarried Sh.Mir Singh and son i.e. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir was born out of the said wedlock.
LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 6/15
14. It is stated that in the year 1975-76, consolidation proceedings were initiated at village Mundka and in the scheme Smt. Manno was allotted land during partition and consolidation. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir moved an application before the Consolidation authorities claiming to be the sole legal heir of late Smt. Manno and brought Smt. Brahmo daughter of Smt. Manno and Sh. Bharte for making the statement. She made the statement to relinquish her share in favour of IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir. However, Ld. Consolidation Officer turned down her request and mutated the land in favour of IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir and IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal having half share each vide order dated 19.12.1979. Thereafter, Smt. Brahmo and IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir had filed a revision petition before F.C. but same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.1987. Thereafter, IP No. 3 filed civil suit for declaration that the order dated 19.12.1979 be declared as null and void. The suit has been still pending and restraint order was also passed on 19.09.1988.
15. It is stated that the IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal has already sold out 3 Bighas 13 Biswas out of his share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/10/2 (2-16), 6/6/1 (0-17) to IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath and compensation of Rs.19,61,780.40 was also assessed for the said land in favour of IP No. 1 Sh.Dina Nath and IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath is only entitled to receive the said amount. IP no. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh was never in possession of the said land at any point of time.
16. It is stated that the claim of IP No. 3 Sh. Sukbir Singh is based on the statement of relinquishment of Smt.Brahmo in favour of Sh. Sukbir Singh/IP No.3 but when LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 7/15 she herself was not entitled for any shre in the holding of Smt. Manno as per law, there is no question of relinquishment of her share in favour of IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
17. On merits, all the averments are denied. It is stated that IP No. 2 had sold the land in question to IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath, who is entitled for entire compensation. The possession of the acquired land was also taken from IP No. 1, who remained in continuous possession. The contents of preliminary submissions and objections are reiterated. It is stated that IP No. 3 is not entitled to any compensation and it is IP No. 1 who is entitled for entire compensation.
18. IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath died on 09.08.2009. Thereafter, his LRs were impleaded vide order dated 08.04.2010.
19. From the pleadings of the parties, my Ld.Predecessor vide order dated 08.04.2010 framed the following issues:
(1). Which of IP is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent? (2). Relief.
20. During the proceedings, as observed in order sheet dated 03.02.2016, IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal expired.
21. IP No. 1 got examined Sh. Pradeep Malik as IP1W1 and IP1W2 Sh. Surinder Kumar, Kanoongo from the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of IP No. 1 LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 8/15 was closed as per statement of Ld. Counsel for the IP No.1 dated 22.07.2016.
22. During the proceedings, IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal died and neither any LRs of IP no. 2 were substituted nor any evidence is led on behalf of IP No. 2.
23. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh got himself examined as IP3W1, Sh. Hukum Raj as IP3W2, Ch. Chhatarpal Singh as IP3W3, Sh. Yatin, Ahlmad of the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Civil Judge as IP3W4 and Sh. Manjeet Singh, Office Kanoongo as IP3W5. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of IP No. 3 was closed as per statement of Sh. Sunil Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 3 dated 09.03.2016.
24. I have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of IP No. 1 LRs of Sh. Dina Nath by Ld. Counsel Sh.D.S Lakra and IP No.3 Sh.Sukhbir Singh by Ld. Counsel Sh.Sunil Chaudhary and also gone through the record. My findings on issue are as under:
ISSUE NO. 125. IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath died during the proceedings and his LRs are impleaded. One of the LR Sh.Pradeep Malik appeared in the witness box and proved his affidavit as Ex. IP1W1/A. He further proved the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 Ex. IP1W1/1, which was between deceased IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal and late IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath regarding the land in question. He further proved Khasra Girdawari for the period 1998 to 2005 Ex. IP1W1/2 (Colly). He LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 9/15 further relied on original death certificate of IP no. 1 Ex. IP1W1/3 and lastly he proved the order of Ld. Civil Judge - 11 (Central) Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh dated 17.10.2014 Ex. IP1W1/4.
26. During the chief examination, Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh raised objection to the mode of proving the documents Ex. IP1W1/1, Ex. IP1W1/2 and Ex. IP1W1/3. The original sale deed produced by the witness IP1W1 Sh.Pradeep Malik, which is a registered document between deceased IP no.2 Sh. Suraj Mal and his father deceased Sh.Dina Nath. In my opinion being the LRs of Sh.Dina Nath, he has produced the original sale deed of the land in question and proved being a registered original document, therefore, objection is overruled. The Khasra Girdawari Ex. IP1W1/2 (Colly) from 1998 to 2005 are the certified copies issued by Revenue Department, therefore, all Khasra Girdawari are also proved as per certified copies of the originals issued by Revenue authorities. Hence, the objection is overruled. The death certificate is also issued by Sub Registrar, Birth & Death, Hissar, Haryana, which in original filed by Sh.Pradeep Malik of his father Sh. Dina Nath, is also proved according to law. Therefore, objection is overruled. All the objections are decied against the IP no.3 and in favour of LRs of IP No.1 Sh. Dina Nath.
27. In the cross-examination IP1W1 Sh. Pradeep Malik denied the suggestion that Sh. Suraj Mal was not the owner of the land in question which was transferred to Sh. Dina Nath. He admitted the IP no.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is the brother of IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal. He also admitted the knowledge of civil LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 10/15 suit field by IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh against IP No.2 Sh.Suraj Mal prior to execution of sale deed. However, he deposed that he was not aware of any status quo order passed prior to the execution of the sale deed and also not ware of any contempt petition. He deposed that he is not aware whether any mutation notice was given or not to the IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh on the basis of sale deed. He also expressed his no knowledge regarding the consolidation proceedings and other proceedings between IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh. He denied the suggestion that his father was not in possession of land in question. He denied that Khasra Girdawari Ex. IP1W1/2 (Colly) are manipuated. He denied the family history of IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh. He denied that the compensation amount of the land in question be paid to IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh only. He denied that his father Sh. Dina Nath is not entitled to any compensation.
28. IP1W2 Sh. Surender Kumar, Kanoongo appeared in witness box and proved Nakal Khatoni of year 2005-06, whereby Khasra No. 6//6/1 (0-17) and 5//10 (2-16) of village Mundka shown in the name of Sh. Dina Nath S/o Sh. Ram Chander Malik and proved attested copy of Nakal Khatoni as Ex. IP1W2/A.
29. IP3W1 Sh. Sukhbir Singh also appeared in witness box and proved his affidavit as Ex. IP3W1/A, plaint as Ex. IP3/1, written statement as IP3/2 and copy of order dated 19.09.1988 as IP3/3. In the cross-examination, he admitted that their father Sh. Mir Singh was having two wives, namely, Smt. Nanti and Smt. Manno. He admitted that his mother LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 11/15 Smt. Manno Devi did not execute any Will during her lifetime. He admitted that he has received the compensation of his share from the LAC. He denied the knowledge of sale of property in question to Sh.Dina Nath by Sh. Suraj Mal. He admitted that he had challenged the documents before the Civil Court and IP No. 1 Sh. Dina Nath was not a party. He admitted that a mutation was taken place in favour of deceased IP no.2 Sh. Suraj Mal of the land in question and he has challenged the same by filing an appeal and thereafter before financial commissioner and both were dismissed. He admitted that property in question was standing in the name of IP No.2 Sh. Suraj Mal when acquired and award was made. He admitted that the property was in his possession when acquired and possession was taken during the acquisition proceedings.
30. IP3W2 Sh. Hukam Raj examined, who proved the order dated 14.07.1987 passed by Financial Commissioner Sh. Madan Jha in case No. 39/1987 titled as 'Smt. Bramoo & Anr. vs. Surajmal'. IP3W3 Sh. Chhatarpal Singh, Kanoongo appeared in witness box and proved order of mutation dated 19.12.1979 as Ex. IP3W3/A and statements of Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Birmo Devi as Ex. IP3W3/B and IP3W3/C. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he is not aware of Urdu language and IP3W3/A is in Urdu language. He further proved an affidavit of IP3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh from the file as Ex. IP3W3/D-1 when the mutation order was passed on 19.12.1979.
31. IP3W4 Sh. Yatin, Ahlmad in the court of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Civil Judge-11, Tis Hazari Courts, proved the LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 12/15 amended plaint Ex. IP3/1 and written statement as Ex. IP3/2 in the suit no. 656/12 titled 'Sukhbir Singh Vs. Suraj Mal'. In the cross-examination, he admitted that vide order dated 17.10.2014, suit was dismissed.
32. IP3W5 Sh. Manjeet Singh, Office Kanoongo proved the Register Karwai of Khata No. 261 dated 26.07.1976 to 15.09.1976 as Ex. IP3W5/1. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot read or speak Urdu language and he has no knowledge of IP3W5/1.
33. After analysis of testimonies of all the witnesses and the respective pleadings of the parties, it is admitted on record that deceased IP No. 2 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No. 3 Sh.Sukhbir Sigh are step brothers. They were born out of the different mothers but their father is deceased Sh. Mir Singh. It is further admitted on record that consolidation proceedings took place at Village Mundka in the year 1975-76 and mutation order was passed whereby land in question was mutated in the name of Sh.Suraj Mal. An affidavit of IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh proved on record Ex. IP3W3/D1, where IP No.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh himself admitted that deceased Sh.Suraj Mal and he both are legal heirs of deceased Sh.Mir Singh and entitled for equal share.
34. Further more, in the cross-examination, IP no.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh admitted that deceased Sh. Suraj Mal sold the property in question to Sh.Dina Nath and he challenged to the mutation order during consolidation proceedings was remained unsuccessful and mutation order dated 19.12.1979 attained finality. He further admitted that the property in LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 13/15 question is in the name of deceased Sh.Suraj Mal, IP No.2 till it was acquired and award was made. He admitted that the property in question was not in his possession and acquisition was not carried out from his possession. He further admitted that he has received the compensation of his own share.
35. Testimony of IP1W1 Sh. Pradeep Malik establish that his father during his lifetime purchased the property through registered sale deed. He further proved that Khasra Girdawari for the year 1998 to 2005, which mention the name of Sh. Dina Nath throughout, establish that after sale the mutation order was carried out by government authorities. It is further proved on record that Civil Suit No. 656/12 filed by IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh was disposed of as dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2014 by Ld. Civil Judge Sh.Rakesh Kumar Singh. The revenue record establish on record that deceased Sh. Suraj Mal was the recorded owner and in possession of the land in question. The mutation order dated 19.12.1979 becomes the final. The affidavit Ex. IP3W3/D-1 of IP no. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is an admission. All the civil proceedings filed by IP No.3 attained finality. On the other hand, LR of IP No.1 proved that his father Sh. Dina Nath was owner in possession of the land in question till its acquisition. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the issue is decided in favour of LRs of IP No.1 Sh.Dina Nath and against the IP no.3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
ISSUE NO. 2 (RELIEF)
36. In view of my observation and discussion on issue no. 1, it is held that the LRs of deceased IP No.1 Sh. Dina Nath LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 14/15 are entitled to the compensation in respect of Item No. 90 as per Naksha Muntzamin in Khasra Nos. 5//10/2 (2-16) A and 6//6/1 (0-17) A, in the revenue estate of Mundka, Delhi. IP No. 3 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is not entitled to any compensation amount.
37. The reference is answered accordingly.
38. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
39. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 8th October, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 08.10.2016 LAC No. 16A/10/07 (New No.29/16) Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Ors. 15/15