Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Godhu (Deceased) on 28 November, 2018
LAC No.48/2016
IN THE COURT OF DR. AJAY GULATI, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.48/2016
Filing No.72751/2005
CNR No. DLST010000052005
Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
(SouthEast) Old Gargi College Building,
Lajpat NagarIV, D. C. Office,
South East District, New Delhi ...................... Petitioner
VERSUS
1.Godhu (Deceased) S/o Sh. Datta Ram Through his legal heirs:
(i) Smt. Bhagwati Devi (widow)
(ii) Pratap Singh (son)
(iii) Sukhbir Singh (son)
(iv) Dhan Singh (son)
(v) Jatinder Singh (son)
(vi) Sheela Devi (daughter)
(vii) Usha Devi (daughter)
(viii) Indira Devi (daughter)
(ix) Jagwati (daughter)
2. Krishan Pal
S/o Late Sh. Datta Ram (name deleted)
3. Chandru (Deceased)
S/o Late Datta Ram
Through his legal heirs:
(i) Smt. Bhagwati Devi (widow)
(ii) Satinder Kumar (son)
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 1 of 43
LAC No.48/2016
(iii) Dev Raj (son)
(iv) Ms. Savita Devi (daughter)
4. Raghubir
S/o Late Datta Ram
5. Smt. Anto Devi (Deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Datta Ram
Through her legal heirs:
(i) Smt. Bhagwati Devi
W/o Sh. Godhu
(ii) Pratap Singh (son)
(iii) Sukhbir Singh (son)
(iv) Dhan Singh (son)
(v) Jatinder Singh (son)
(vi) Sheela Devi (daughter)
(vii) Usha Devi (daughter)
(viii) Indira Devi (daughter)
(ix) Jagwati (daughter)
(x) Smt. Bhagwati
W/o Sh. Chandru
(xi) Satinder
S/o Sh. Chandru
(xii) Dev Raj
S/o Anto Devi
(xiii) Savita Devi
D/o Chandru
(xiv) Raghubir
S/o Datta Ram
(xv) Godha
D/o Anto Devi
(xvi) Satya
D/o Anto Devi
(xvii) Savitri
D/o Anto Devi
All:
R/o Village Aali,
P. O. Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 2 of 43
LAC No.48/2016
6. Gaya Prasad
S/o Ram Dass
7. Vinod Kumar
S/o Ram Dass
8. Kapil Kumar
S/o Ram Dass
9. Bhushan Kumar
S/o Ram Dass
All:
R/o T116, Village Okhla,
New Delhi
10. Abdul Shameen
S/o Bashiruddin
R/o 8A, Gali No.3,
Noor Nagar, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi
11. Mahinder Singh
S/o Jaggu Singh
R/o T66, Hari Nagar,
Sourabh Vihar, Jaitpur,
New Delhi
12. Noor Mohammad
S/o Ismail
R/o 94A, Bharat Nagar,
New Delhi
13. Sardar Mohammad Khan
S/o Maqbool Khan
R/o 1669, Suiwali Gali,
Takhat Wali, Delhi
14. Safia Khanan
W/o M. A. Nasim Baigh
R/o 4189 Katra Nizamul Mulk,
Jamia Masjid, Delhi
15. Feroz Ahmad
S/o Saghir Ahmad
R/o 46, Gali No.1, Zakir Nagar,
New Delhi
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 3 of 43
LAC No.48/2016
16. Sanwary Begum
W/o A. Raheem
R/o H. No.21, Gali No.3,
Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
17. Razia Khan
W/o Firoz Ahmad
R/o 46, Gali No.1, Zakir Nagar,
New Delhi
18. Noor Jahan
W/o Hasan Ali
R/o F 1 /2, Jogabai Extension,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
19. Iqbal Sagheer
S/o Saghir Ahmad
R/o 46, Gali No.1, Zakir Nagar,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
20. Smt. Gulabi
W/o Bhola Gupta
R/o Nirankari Satsang Bhawan,
New Delhi
21. Mohd. Ismail Khan
S/o Rahim Khan
and
Firdous Jahan
D/o Mohd. Ismail
Both:
R/o 174, Noor Nagar,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
22. Yunus Ali
S/o Husani
R/o G35/1, Abul Fazal,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
23. Akbar Ali
S/o Mohd. Ali
and
Ali Yar Mohd. & Lal Mohd.
All:
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 4 of 43
LAC No.48/2016
S/o Talugdar
All:
R/o K41, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi
24. Mohd. Imtiyaz
S/o Amir Baksh
R/o K107, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
25. Mohd. Yamin S/o Amir Baksh R/o K107, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
26. Smt. Sahana Khatoon W/o Mohd. Waram Khan R/o T185, Street No.1, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
27. Hassan Ali S/o Husini R/o F 1 /2, Jogabai Extension, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
28. Shamsher Ali S/o Abdul Azeez R/o Aali Extension, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi
29. Munsaf S/o Nazir Ali R/o Aali Extension, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi
30. Noor Ahmed S/o Ghazfar Khan R/o 93, Bharat Nagar, New Delhi
31. Shaukat Ali S/o Abdul Razza Khan R/o 573, Street No.7, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 5 of 43 LAC No.48/2016
32. Nafees Ahmed S/o Mohd. Salam R/o 1761, Gali Ghantewali, Pahari Bhojla, Delhi6
33. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Salam R/o 1761, Gali Ghantewali, Pahari Bhojla, Delhi6
34. Rafiqul Islam (Deceased) Through is legal heirs:
34/1. Smt. Seema Khanam W/o Late Rafiqul Islam 34/2. Nabigha Islam D/o Late Rafiqul Islam 34/3. Nusra Islam D/o Late Rafiqul Islam 34/4. Ateequl Islam S/o Rafiqul Islam All:
R/o 1761, Gali Ghantewali, Pahari Bhojla, Delhi6
35. Ansari Begum W/o R. Khan R/o 175A, Street No.6, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
36. Shahabuddin S/o Gulshair R/o 255, Street No.3, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
37. Mohd. Ali & Hashim Both:
S/o Shabbir Ahmed R/o 15/44, Trilokpuri, New Delhi
38. Babu UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 6 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 S/o Abdul Hasan R/o 128, Street No.17, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
39. Bunyad Ali S/o Nanney R/o Aali Extension, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi
40. Abdul Hamid S/o Subrati R/o 170, Street No.17, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
41. Bilquees W/o Abdul Hamid R/o 170, Street No.17, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
42. Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Lal R/o T116, Okhla, New Delhi
43. Khursheed S/o Abdul Wahid R/o 95A, Street No.4, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi
44. Noor Hasan & Ali Hasan Both:
S/o Abdul Wahid R/o B35, Street No.20,Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
45. Warisha Begum W/o Mohde Ali R/o 7, Kapuri Colony, Old Faridabad, Haryana
46. Bakridan W/o Islamuddin R/o 7, Kapuri Colony, Old Faridabad, Haryana UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 7 of 43 LAC No.48/2016
47. Sabiran W/o Abdul Wahid R/o 7, Kapuri Colony, Old Faridabad, Haryana
48. Haseen Jahan W/o Ghulam Sabir R/o 17, Street No.5, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
49. Fahimuddin S/o Abdul Sattar R/o D176, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
50. Sirajuddin & Riyazuddin Both:
S/o Nanney R/o 176, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
51. Latif & Nazeer Akhri R/o Mehboob Nagar, Near Street No.1, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
52. Saleemuddin, Nizamuddin, Faimuddin & Ali All:
S/o Ishak R/o M12, Abul Fazal, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
53. Asharfi Devi D/o Dallu W/o Chattar Singh R/o Village Aali, P.O. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi ...................Interested Persons UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 8 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 Reference received on : 11.01.2005 Date of institution : 11.01.2005 Date on which order was reserved : 27.11.2018 Date of Award : 28.11.2018 AWARD (on reference petition under Section 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
1. The present reference petition under Section 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with memorandum of interested persons and compensation amount of Rs.2205268/ was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to Award No.4/9899 of Village Aali, in respect of acquisition of land vide preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 31.10.1996. Thereafter, notices of the reference were issued to all the concerned parties. The reference was forwarded for ascertaining the compensation amongst the interested persons, in respect of Khasra No.372, 373, 374, 375, 391, 392 & 405.
2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Gaya Prasad i.e. IP No.6, Vinod Kumar i.e. IP No.7, Kapil Kumar i.e. IP No.8, Bhushan Kumar i.e. IP No.9 and Om Prakash i.e. IP No.42 and consequently, vide order dated 31.01.2006 they were proceeded against exparte. Vide order dated 24.01.2007, legal heirs of Godhu i.e. IP No.1 were brought on record. Thereafter, on 22.11.2007, applications moved on behalf of the legal heirs UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 9 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 of IP No.2, IP No.3 and IP No.5 were allowed and they were brought on record.
3. In the meantime, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved on behalf of Smt. Ashrafi Devi seeking her impleadment in the present reference since the same was not mentioned in the memorandum forwarded by the LAC despite the fact that the name of Smt. Asharfi Devi was reflected as one of the beneficiary of the compensation before the LAC. Consequently, directions were issued to the LAC to file revised memorandum mentioning the name of Smt. Ashrafi Devi and the same was filed on 20.09.2011.
4. Subsequently, vide orders dated 08.12.2015, 20.12.2016, and 13.12.2017, applications moved on behalf of the legal heirs of IP No.24 Mohd. Imtiaz, IP No.34 Rafiqul Ismal, and IP No.10, respectively were allowed and they were brought on record.
CLAIMS OF THE INTERESTED PERSONS On behalf of legal heirs of IP No.1, IP No.3 & IP No.5 and IP No.4
5. These IPs in their claim submitted that they, alongwith IP No.2 were the recorded owners of the land bearing Khasra No.372 (206), 373 (416), 374 (416) & 375 (400) situated in Village Aali and since the other IPs who claimed to have purchased plots of land out of the abovementioned Khasra UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 10 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 numbers, have failed to produce any original document in support of their ownership, the compensation in respect of acquired land bearing Khasra No.372 (206), 373 (416), 374 (416) & 375 (400) be granted to them.
On behalf of IP No.12 to 15, 17, 22, 23 (a & b), 26, 28, 32, 33, 39 & 41
6. IP No.12 to 15, 17, 22, 23 (a & b), 26, 28, 32, 33, 39 & 41 filed their joint claim through their Special Power of Attorney holder Sh. Firoz Ahmed wherein they submitted that their right & interest in the acquired land has been recognized by Smt. Urmila Rani, the then SubJudge, Delhi vide her judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989 in suit No.1004/89, 1588/89 and 10/89. The said judgment and decree was also relied upon in another case i.e. criminal case No.200/89 P. S. Badarpur vide DD No.17 dated 04.10.1989 under Section 448/427/34 IPC and even a compromise deed was also executed between the parties i.e. accused and the complainants. They further submitted that the recorded owners of the acquired land denied their right & claim by illegally withdrawing part of the compensation amount and consequently, an FIR was lodged by the Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch vide FIR no. 117/2000 under Section 420/120B/193 IPC P. S. Sarita Vihar. These IPs have submitted that their claim as interested persons was admitted by Sh. S. N. Dhingra, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 27.09.2000 at the time of disposing off the bail UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 11 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 application moved by the recorded owners. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also issued directions to the Secretary Land & Building, Delhi Government who in turn issued directions to LAC vide order dated 20.08.2004 to release the compensation amount to these IPs. LAC thereafter, in compliance, issued order dated 09.09.2004 for processing the payment of compensation. However, LAC concerned, without any justification, referred the present reference to the Court despite the fact of there being no objection on behalf of any other interested person. Consequently, they prayed for grant of compensation being legally entitled to receive the same.
On behalf of IP No.10, 11, 16, 20, 36, 43, 45 to 50 & 52
7. In the joint claim filed on behalf of IP No.10, 11, 16, 20, 36, 43, 45 to 50 & 52, it was submitted that IP No.10 Abdul Shamim was the absolute owner of the plot No. 7 measuring 100 sq. yds, situated in Khasra No. 372 having purchased the same from Smt. Ramwati W/o S. Badshah Singh vide Agreement to Sell, GPA, and other documents all (dated 16.02.1987); that IP No. 11 Mahinder Singh was the owner of ½ share of plot No. 6 measuring 100 sq. yds in Khasra No.372 as he had purchased the same from Sh. Gulam Sabir vide GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. all dated 15.04.1985; that IP No. 16 Smt. Sanwary Begum had purchased the plot No. 4C measuring 100 sq. yds in Khasra No. 373 from Smt. Geeta vide GPA, Agreement to Sell etc., all dated UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 12 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 26.05.1986; that IP No. 20 Smt. Gulabi is entitled to receive the compensation amount since she had purchased the plot No.18, BlockD measuring 200 sq. yds, in Khasra No.374 from Godhu, Chandru, Raghbir and Krishan vide GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. dated 23.05.1983; that IP No.36 was the absolute owner of the plot in BlockA measuring 200 sq. yds in Khasra No.391 since she had purchased the land from Smt. Asharfi Devi vide Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 12.04.1983; that IP No.43 Khursheed had purchased the plot No.15, BlockA in Khasra No.392 measuring 200 sq. yds from Smt. Asharfi Devi vide GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. all dated 12.05.1984 and hence entitled to receive the compensation; that IP No.45 Smt. Warisa Begum became owner of the land bearing plot No.5 (½) measuring 100 sq. yds in khasra No.392 from Asharfi Devi through GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. dated 23.05.1985; that IP No.46 Faridan was the absolute owner of the land bearing plot No.4 (¼) measuring 50 sq. yds in Khasra No.392 since she had purchased the same from Asharfi Devi through GPA, Agreement to Sell etc dated 23.05.1984; that IP No.47 Smt. Shabiran was the owner of plot No.2, BlockA, measuring 100 sq. yds in Khasra No.392 having purchased the same from Smt. Asharfi Devi through GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. dated 12.05.1984; that IP No.48 Smt. Haseen Jahan claimed her ownership over the plot No.1 BlockA, measuring 200 sq. yds Khasra No.392 on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. dated 23.04.1985 executed by Smt. Jorbi UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 13 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 W/o Sh. Kallu Khan; that IP No.49 Fahimuddin has right to claim compensation in respect of plot No.6, BlockA measuring 200 sq. yds Khasra No.392 since he had purchased the same from Smt. Asharfi Devi vide GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. dated 23.05.1984; that the compensation in respect of plot No.8 (½) measuring 100 sq. yds in Khasra No.405 be granted to IP No.50 Sirajuddin and Riazuddin since they had purchased the same from Smt. Asharfi Devi through GPA, Agreement to Sell and other documents dated 15.10.1984; and that IP No.52 was the absolute owner of plot No.7, BlockA measuring 200 sq. yds Khasra No.405 since he had purchased the land from Smt. Asharfi Devi on 23.05.1984 vide GPA and Agreement to Sell etc. They further submitted that mutation in their favour had already been sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities.
On behalf of IP No.23(a) & 23(c) i.e. Lal Mohd.
8. Though these IPs have filed joint claim along with other IPs i.e. IP No. 12 to 15, 17, 22, 26, 28, 32, 33, 39 & 41 in respect of the acquired land, however, they also preferred their separate claim therein submitting that they were the owners and in possession of 41 sq. yds of land out of total land of 100 sq. yds in Khasra No.375 in view of the sale documents dated 12.03.1996 executed by Abdul Hakeem in their favour; that Abdul Hakeem was the general power of attorney holder of Godhu, Chandru, Krishnan, Raghuvir who were the recorded UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 14 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 owners of the acquired land; and that they were entitled to receive the compensation amount.
On behalf of IP No.24 Mohd. Imtiyaz
9. In his claim, IP No.24 submitted that he purchased ½ portion of plot No.7, BlockD in Khasra No.375 from Mohd. Yunus vide sale documents dated 09.02.1993 who himself purchased the said plot from Chiraguddin; that Chiraguddin purchased the said land from Abdul Hakim who in turn purchased the same from Godhu, Chandru, Krishan and Raghuvir vide sale documents; and that being the owner and in possession of the abovementioned land, he was entitled to receive the compensation amount.
On behalf of IP No.25 Mohd. Yamin
10. IP No.25 submitted that he purchased ½ portion of plot No.7, BlockD in Khasra No.375 from Mohd. Yunus vide sale documents dated 09.02.1993 who himself purchased from Chiraguddin; that Chiraguddin purchased the said land from Abdul Hakim who in turn purchased the same from Godhu, Chandru, Krishan and Raghuvir vide sale documents; and that being the owner and in possession of the abovementioned land, he was entitled to receive the compensation amount.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 15 of 43 LAC No.48/2016On behalf of IP No.32 i.e. Dr. Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui
11. IP No.32 claimed himself to be owner and in possession of 200 sq. yds of land in Khasra No.391 situated at Village Aali. He submitted that on 12.04.1984 Smt. Asharfi Devi, the original owner, had sold the abovementioned land to one Smt. Suhagwati W/o Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma who out of 200 sq. yds, further sold 100 sq. yds to one Jamil Ahmad S/o Mohd. Ismail on 09.01.1985 and remaining 100 sq. yds to him on 27.12.1986 by way of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit Etc. He further submitted that vide General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Agreement to Sell, Receipt etc., all dated 26.05.1986, he purchased the land measuring 100 sq. yds of Khasra No.391 from Jamil Ahmad. Therefore, he has prayed for grant of compensation in respect of 200 sq. yds of land of Khasra No.391, Village Aali.
On behalf of IP No.33 i.e. Mohd. Shafiq
12. IP No.33 in his claim submitted that he was the owner and in possession of 300 sq. yds of land in Khasra No.391 situated in Village Aali by claiming to have purchased it from one Ghayas and Smt. Nazneen Akhtar W/o Ghayas. Mohd. Shafiq submitted that the original owner Smt. Asharfi Devi sold the land measuring 300 sq. yds of Khasra No.391 to Ghayas on 10.10.1984 and on 26.12.1986, Ghayas sold 200 sq. yds of land to him and remaining land of 100 sq. yds was sold by his wife UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 16 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 Smt. Nazneen Akhtar.
On behalf of legal heirs of IP No.34
13. Legal heirs of IP No.34 submitted that IP No.34 i.e. Mohd. Rafiqu @ Rafiqul Islam was the owner and in possession of 100 sq. yds of land in Khasra No.391 having purchased the same from one Ghayas vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt etc. all dated 26.12.1986, who had purchased the same from the original owner Smt. Asharfi Devi. Therefore, the legal heirs of IP No.34 prayed for grant of compensation in respect of 100 sq. yds of land in Khasra No.391 in their favour.
On behalf of IP No.39 i.e. Buniad Ali
14. Vide his claim, IP No.39 submitted that he had purchased ½ portion of plot No.5, BlockA in Khasra No.392 from Smt. Asharfi Devi vide sale documents dated 23.05.1984 who was the recorded owner of the same and prayed for grant of compensation in respect of the said land being the owner and in possession of the acquired land.
On behalf of IP No.53 i.e. Smt. Asharfi Devi
15. Smt. Asharfi Devi claimed herself to be the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.391 (416), 392 (416) and 405 (416) in Village Aali. She had submitted that the IPs who claimed to UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 17 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 have purchased plots of land out of the abovementioned Khasra numbers did not file original sale documents and as such she was entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land.
ISSUES
16. Vide order dated 20.11.2018, the following issues were framed:
1. Which of the IPs have right to receive the compensation, if so, how and to what extent? Onus on IPs
2. Relief
17. It needs to be highlighted that prior to framing of issues, evidence had already been led and final arguments addressed on behalf of the IP's. It was at the stage of seeking clarifications, it came to light that no issues had been framed even though the matter was at the stage of leading evidence when the Reference was received in this Court by way of transfer.
EVIDENCE ADDUCED
18. In order to prove their respective claims, IP No.1, to 5, 10, 11, 16, 20, 23(a), 23(c), 25, 32, 34, 36, 39, 48, 49, 50, 52, and UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 18 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 53 led their evidence by examining themselves.
On behalf of IP No.1 to 5 i.e. Godhu, Krishna Pal, Chandru, Raghubir & Anto Devi
19. IP No.1 to IP No.5, in order to prove their case, examined IP No.4 Raghubir Singh as IP No.1 to 5/W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP No.1 to 5/A.
20. During his cross examination, witness submitted that Khasra No.375 was jointly owned by Godhu, Raghubir, Chandru and Krishan who are real brothers. To a specific question regarding selling of 100 sq. yds of land to Abdul Hakeem on 12.01.1984, he submitted that he did sell some land in Khasra No.375 but could identify the land only after seeing the documents. He submitted that without looking at the original documents, he could not say whether he sold plot No.7 measuring 100 sq. yds in Khasra No.375 to Abdul Hakim who later sold the same to Chiraguddin who further sold the land to Mohd. Yunus and from whom Mohd. Yamin IP No.25 purchased the said plot; and that he could not say whether IP No.25 Mohd. Yamin was in possession of the plot No.7 at the time of acquisition.
On behalf of IP No.10 i.e. Abdul Shamim
21. Wasim Akram, son of IP No.10 i.e. Abdul Shamim examined himself as IP10W/1 and tendered his evidence by way UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 19 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 of affidavit Ex.IP10/A. He relied on the following documents:
1. GPA dated 16.02.1987 executed by Ramwati (as attorney of Gulam Sabir) in favour of Abdul Shamim (IP No.10) in respect of Plot No.7, Khasra No.372 as Ex.IP10/1;
2. Agreement to Sell executed by Ramwati as owner of Plot No.7 as Ex.IP10/2; and
3. Affidavit as Ex.IP10/3.
These documents were objected to by Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 and 53 on the ground of mode of proof)
22. During his cross examination, IP10W/1 submitted that Khasra No.372 belonged to Smt. Ashrafi Devi; that he did not have title documents executed by Smt. Ashrafi Devi in favour of his father; and that he did not have any document in his favour or his father's name to show that they remained in actual physical possession of the plot measuring 100 sq. yds part of Khasra No.372. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Asharfi Devi did not have right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra No.372.
On behalf of IP No.11 i.e. Mahinder Singh
23. IP No.11 in support of his claim examined himself as IP NO.11/W1. He led his evidence by way of affidavit UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 20 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 Ex.IPNo.11/A and relied on the following documents:
1. GPA dated 15.04.1985 executed by Gulam Sabir (as attorney of Sharafat Ali) in favour of Mahinder Singh in respect of Plot No.6 (half portion measuring 100 sq yd) as Ex.IP11/1;
2. Agreement to Sell as Ex.IP11/2; (no such document on record) and
3. Affidavit of Gulam Sabir in favour of Mahinder Singh regarding Sale of Plot No.6 (half portion) as Ex.IP11/3.
These documents were objected to by Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 and 53 on the ground of mode of proof)
24. In his cross examination, IP No.11 submitted that property measuring 100 sq. yds out of Khasra No.372 of Village Aali was purchased from Gulam Sabir and that he had seen the bhumidari documents in favour of Gulam Sabir. He denied the suggestions that Gulam Sabir was not the bhumidar of Khasra No.372; and that Gulam Sabir has no right or title or interest in the land bearing Khasra No.372 of Village Aali which was under
the bhumidari of Godhu, Krishan, Raghubir & Chandru.
On behalf of IP No.16 i.e. Sanawari begum
25. Smt. Sanawari Begum examined herself as IP16W/1 by UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 21 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 tendering her affidavit Ex.IP16/A and relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of her Aadhar Card as MarkA;
2. GPA dated 26.05.1986 executed by Geeta in favour of Sanawari Begum in respect of Plot No.4 C, Khasra No.373 as Ex.PW16/1;
3. Agreement to sell by Geeta (as attorney of Zafar Alam) as Ex.IP16/2;
4. Receipt as Ex.IP16/3;
5. GPA dated 15.05.1985 executed by Zafar Alam (as attorney of Immamudin) in favour of Geeta as Ex.IP16/4;
6. GPA dated 25.02.1985 executed by Immamudin (as Attorney of IP No.2 to 4) in favour of Zafar Alam as Ex.IP16/5; and
7. GPA dated 23.04.1984 executed by IP No.2 to 4 in favour of Immamudin as Ex.IP16/6.
These documents were objected to by the Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 & 53 on the ground of mode of proof)
26. During her cross examination, IP16W/1 submitted that she had purchased the land measuring 100 sq. yds out of Khasra No.373 through her husband Late Sh Abdul Rahim from Smt. Geeta Devi, who purchased the same from Sh. Sabir Ali; and UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 22 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 that she did not know from whom Sh. Sabir Ali purchased the land in question. She showed her ignorance as to who was the bhumidar of Khasra No.373; whose houses were constructed in east, west, north & west direction of the land in question; and whether the property was two side open or having a gali on one side. She further submitted that she could not file any document to show her possession over the property except the documents already filed; that she had no knowledge whether the property was mutated in her name in the revenue record; that she did not remember the name of the persons who signed the exhibited documents as witness; that she did not know what amount was paid to the owner at the time of purchase of the plot; that the sale documents were prepared in Patiala House; that she could not tell as to who were present at the time of purchase of the property or who were the witnesses; and that she did not know whether the documents were attested by a Notary Public. She denied the suggestions that she did not file any sale document executed by recorded bhumidars of Khasra No.373; that she had no concern with the aforementioned land & no plot was sold to her by the recorded bhumidar/owner; and that she never remained in physical possession of the property in question.
On behalf of IP No.20 i.e. Gulabi
27. In order to prove her claim, IP No.20 examined herself as UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 23 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 IP20W/1 by tendering her affidavit Ex.IP20/A and relied on the following documents;
1. Photocopy of GPA dated 23.05.1984 executed by IP No.2 to 4 in favour of Bhola Gupta (husband of Gulabi) as MarkAIP20 (in examination in chief, referred to as agreement to sell);
2. Photocopy of Agreement to Sell by IP No.2 to 4 in favour of Gulabi in respect of Plot No.18 (mentioned as 'affidavit' in examinationinchief) as MarkBIP20; and 3. Photocopy of affidavit of IP No.2 to 4 regarding sale of Plot No.18 to Bhola Ram (referred to as 'receipt' in examinationinchief) as MarkCIP20.
(These documents were objected to by Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 & 53 since the same were filed at the time of tendering of affidavit only)
28. During cross examination on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53, IP20W1 submitted that she had seen the revenue record of Khasra No.374 of Village Aali which was under the bhumidhari of Godhu (wrongly written as Bhondu in the evidence); that Godhu was the exclusive owner of property purchased by her;
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 24 of 43 LAC No.48/2016and that she had placed on record original copy of the title documents executed by Godhu in her favour. She denied the suggestion that Godhu had no concern with the land bearing Khasra No.374. Further, she submitted that she did not know who owned the land in the different directions of the land in question or in which direction the gali was existing; that her plot was two side open; that she could not file any document showing her physical possession over the property in question; that the property was mutated in her name in the revenue record; and that she did not know where the sale documents were signed & executed or who all were present at the time of execution or who signed the sale documents as witness or whether the sale documents were attested by Notary Public or not.
29. IP20W/1 further denied the suggestions that no plot in Khasra No.374 was sold to her; that she never remained in physical possession of the plot in question; and that she did not file any sale document since the same was not purchased by her.
On behalf of IP No.23(a) i.e. Akbar Ali
30. IP No.23(a) Akbar Ali examined himself as IP23(a)W/1. He led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP23(a)W1/X and relied on the following documents:
1. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit of transfer of possession, Will and receipt of money, all dated UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 25 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 (except Affidavit) 12.03.1996, executed in favour of IP No.23(a) & Ex.IP23(c) as Ex.IP23W1/A (colly.); and
2. Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit of transfer of possession dated 12.04.1996 executed in favour of Abdul Hakim S/o Azimullah as MarkA (colly.).
31. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, witness submitted that he neither had any sale deed in his favour in respect of land measuring 41 sq. yd in Khasra No.375 nor khasra girdawari to show his possession; and that originals of documents exhibited by him were not in his custody. He denied the suggestions that documents Ex.IP23aW/1/A (colly.) and Ex.IP23aW/1/1 (colly.) were forged & fabricated documents, and therefore he did not file the same; that Godhu, Chandru, Krishan and Raghubir did not sell any plot to Abdul Hakim; that Abdul Hakim has no concern, right, title or interest in the land of Khasra No.375 of village Aali; and that he had no concern with Khasra No.375 or that he remained in possession of the same. He admitted that he did not have any document to show that 18 sq. yard of land in Khasra No.375 was in his possession by voluntarily submitting that he had constructed 3 rooms and boundary on the plot but did not have documents with regard to the construction carried out by him.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 26 of 43 LAC No.48/2016On behalf of IP 23(c) i.e. Lal Mohammad
32. IP23(c) Lal Mohd. examined himself as IP23(c)W/1 by way of affidavit Ex. IP23(c)W1/X and relied on the documents already exhibited by IP23(a).
33. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, he submitted that he did not remember whether the land in question was mutated in his name in the revenue record or not; and that he could not say whether the person from whom he had purchased the land was not the bhumidar. The cross examination of IP23(c) on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53 was on the same lines as was of IP No.23(a).
On behalf of IP No.25 i.e. Mohd. Yamin
34. On behalf of IP No.25, his son Intezar Ali examined himself as IP25/W1 by way of affidavit Ex.IP25W/1/1 and relied on the following document:
1. Special Power of Attorney executed by Mohd.
Yamin in favour of witness Intezar Ali as Ex.IP No.25W/1/PA;
2. Copies of title documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA and affidavit all dated 09.02.1993 executed by Mohd. Yunus in favour of Mohd. Yamin as Ex.IP No.25W/1/A (Colly.) (OSR); and
3. Copies of chain of documents i.e. by IP No.2 UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 27 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 to 4 in favour of Khatoon Nisa (Agreement to Sell), in favour of Abdul Hakim (GPA), in favour of Abdul Kaim (Affidavit), by Abdul Hakim to Chirguddin (Agreement to Sell), and GPA executed by Chiraguddin in favour of Mohd. Yuns (Agreement to Sell, GPA) as MarkA (objected to mode of proof).
35. During his cross examination, IP No.25/W1 submitted that plot No.7 in Khasra No.375 of village Aali was purchased by his father Mohd. Yamin from Yunus; that he had documents of purchase in favour of Mohd. Yunus from Sh. Chiraguddin who bought the same from Abdul Hakim who in turn purchased the plot from Godhu; and that he did not have original documents executed by Godhu & Ors in favour of Abdul Hakim. He denied the suggestions that he did not place on record the original documents since no plot was sold by Godhu & Ors to Abdul Hakim; that documents exhibited as Ex.IP25W1/A (colly.) were forged and fabricated; that physical possession of the aforementioned property was never handed over by Godhu & Ors to any person till the acquisition of land; that he was not authorized by his father to depose; and that SPA Ex.IP25W/1 PA was a forged and fabricated document.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 28 of 43 LAC No.48/2016On behalf of IP No.32 i.e. Dr. Nafeez Ahmad Siddiqui
36. IP No.32 examined himself as IP32W/1 by tendering his affidavit Ex.IP32W1/X and relied on the following documents:
1. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit of transfer of possession, Will and receipt of money dated 12.04.1984 which were executed by Asharfi Devi (IP No.53) in favour of Suhagwati as Ex.IP32W1/A (Colly.) (objected to on the ground of mode of proof); (the exhibition of these documents has been wrongly marked as Ex.IP32W/1A)
2. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit of transfer of possession dated 09.01.1985 executed by Suhagwati in favour of Jamil Ahmed as Ex.IP32W1/1 (Colly.); (the exhibition of these documents has been wrongly marked as Ex.IP32 W/11)
3. GPA (in favour of IP No.32), agreement to sell (in favour of Nargis Jahan W/o Dr. Nafees Ahmad Siddiqui i.e. IP No.32), affidavit of transfer of possession dated 26.05.1986 executed by Jamil Ahmad in favour of IP No.32 as Ex.IP32W1/2 (Colly.) (objected to on the ground of mode of proof); (the exhibition of these documents has been wrongly marked as Ex.IP32W1/1) UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 29 of 43 LAC No.48/2016
4. GPA, agreement to sell , affidavit of transfer of possession dated 27.12.1986 executed by Suhawati Sharma in favour of IP No.32 as Ex.IP32W1/3 (Colly.) (objected to on the ground of mode of proof); (no such documents have been filed on record) and
5. GPA executed by Sughwati Sharma in favour of IP No.32, agreement to sell executed by Smt. Sughwati in favour of Smt. Nargis Jahan W/o Sh.
Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui and affidavit of transfer of possession executed by Smt. Sughwati Sharma in favour of Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui dated 27.12.1986 as Ex.IP32W1/4 (Colly.) (objected to on the ground of mode of proof).
37. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, IP32W/1 submitted that his name was not recorded in the Revenue Records as the owner of the land in question; and that he could not say whether the person from whom he purchased the land was not the bhumidar.
38. In the cross examination on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53, the witness submitted that he knew Asharfi Devi since her plot was bought by him through Suhagwati and Jamil; and that he did not remember the address of Suhagwati. However, her address had been mentioned in the documents filed by him. He UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 30 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 denied that Smt. Asharfi Devi did not sell plot No.200 sq. yds in Khasra No.391 to Smt. Suhagwati; and documents filed by him Ex.IP32W/1/A (colly.), Ex.IP32W/1/1 (colly) and Ex.IP32W/1/2 (colly) were forged and fabricated documents.
On behalf of IP No.34 i.e. Mohd. Rafiq
39. On behalf of IP No.34, his wife Smt. Seema Khanam examined herself as IP34/1W/1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.IP34/1W1/X.
40. In her cross examination on behalf of UOI, she submitted that she did not remember whether the land was mutated in the Revenue Record in her name; that she could not say whether the person from whom she purchased the property was not the bhumidar; and that she did not know whether her husband had seen the title documents at the time of purchase of land.
41. During cross examination on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53, she submitted that she had not seen the sale deed in her favour in respect of Khasra No.391 measuring 100 sq. yd.; and that she did not have Khasra Girdawari to show her or her husband's possession over the land in question. She denied the suggestions that no plot was sold by Smt. Asharfi Devi to Ghayas; that Ghayas had no concern, right, title or interest in the land in Khasra No.391 of village Aali; that she did not have concern with the same; and that neither her husband Mohd. Rafique nor Ghayas had any concern with the land in question.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 31 of 43 LAC No.48/2016She admitted she did not purchase the land from Smt. Asharfi.
On behalf of IP No.36 i.e. Shahabuddin
42. IP No.36 led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP36/A and relied on the following documents:
1. GPA dated 12.04.1984 executed by Asharfi Devi in favour of Shabuddin as Ex.IP36/1;
2. Agreement to sell executed by Asharfi Devi i.e. IP No.53 in favour of Khatoon W/o Shahabuddin as Ex.IP36/2;
3. Affidavit of Asharfi Devi as Ex.IP36/3; and
4. Receipt executed by Asharfi Devi as Ex.IP36/4.
These documents were objected to by the Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 & 53 on the ground of mode of proof.
43. In his cross examination, IP36 submitted that he had purchased the land from Smt. Asharfi Devi but did not have registered sale documents executed by Smt. Asharfi Devi in his favour; that he did not have any other documents except the documents exhibited as Ex.IP36/1 to Ex.IP36/4 to show his possession over the plot of land measuring 200 sq. yds; and that his name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of Khasra No.391 and has placed the copy of mutation in his name.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 32 of 43 LAC No.48/2016He denied the suggestion that no mutation in respect of abovementioned land was carried out in his name. He further submitted that at the time of purchase, one Hassan Ali was present who signed the sale documents as a witness; that he did not remember if any other person was present at the time of purchase; that he did not remember the name of person who had signed the documents Ex.IP36/1 to Ex.IP36/4 as a witness; and that he did not know whether the documents were attested by a Notary Public. The witness denied the suggestions that Smt. Asharfi did not sell any plot in Khasra No.391; that he never was in possession of the aforementioned plot; that exhibited documents were forged and fabricated documents and did not bear the signatures of Smt. Asharfi Devi; and that he had no concern with the plot in Khasra No.391.
On behalf of IP No.39 i.e. Buiyad Ali
44. IP No.39 Buniyad Ali examined himself as IP No.39/W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. He relied on the documents i.e. photocopies of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, all dated 23.05.1984 as MarkA.
45. In his cross examination on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53, IP 39 submitted that he did not have registered sale deed executed by Smt. Asharfi Devi in his favour; and did not know the total area of Khasra No.392 of Village Aali. He denied the suggestions that Smt. Asharfi Devi neither sold any plot in Khasra No.392 UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 33 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 nor delivered the physical possession of the same to him; that Smt. Asharfi Devi handed over the physical possession of the land in question to the Government; and that since the documents relied upon by him as MarkA were forged and fabricated, therefore he did not file the original documents.
On behalf of IP No.48 i.e. Haseen Jahan
46. On behalf of IP No.48, her son Tahir Ali Khan examined himself as IP48W/1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP48/A. He relied on the SPA dated 29.03.2017 executed by his mother in his favour as Ex.IP48/1.
47. In his cross examination on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & 53, IP48W/1 submitted that he was not present at the time of purchase of plot; that Smt. Asharfi Devi was the recorded bhumidar of the land in Khasra No.392; that he could not file any document to show physical possession of his mother over the land; that he did not know whether the land in question was mutated in the name of his mother in the revenue records; that the sale documents were deposited in the office of Crime Branch in FIR No.117/2000 and IO Hari Ram had issued a receipt which was exhibited as Ex.IP48/X, but admitted that the same did not bear the signatures of IO Hari Ram; that neither his mother nor he moved any application for withdrawal of the said document from the office of Crime Branch; and that he could not say whether he told his advocate at the time of preparation of UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 34 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 affidavit in evidence that his mother purchased the property in question from Smt. Asharfi Devi. It was voluntarily submitted that his mother bought the property from Smt. Jor Bi who in turn purchased the same from Smt. Asharfi Devi but could not tell the date, month and year of purchase by Smt. Jor Bi from Smt. Asharfi Devi.
48. The witness denied the suggestions that neither any documents were taken by IO Hari Ram nor any receipt was issued by him; that no property/plot was sold by Smt. Asharfi Devi to Smt. Jor Bi, therefore no sale document was filed by him; that neither Jor Bi nor Haseen Jahan had any right, title or interest in land of Khasra No.392; that no SPA was executed by his mother in his favour; and the said SPA same was a forged document.
On behalf of IP No.49 i.e. Fahimuddin
49. IP No.49 Fahimuddin tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP49/A and relied on the photocopies of title documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt all dated 23.05.1984 as MarkA to MarkD, respectively.
50. During his cross examination, IP No.49 submitted that original sale documents were with his advocate, however, again said that the same were lying in the office of SDM near Qutab Hotel. He denied the suggestions that documents filed by him were forged and fabricated, and therefore he did not file the UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 35 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 original documents; and that Smt. Asharfi Devi never sold plot No.6, BlockA measuring 200 sq. yd in Khasra No.392 in Village Aali.
On behalf of IP No.50 i.e. Riyazuddin & Sirajuddin
51. IP No.50 Riyazuddin examined himself as IP50/W1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP50/A. He relied on GPA executed by Asharfi Devi in favour of Riyazuddin & Sirajuddin, agreement to sell executed by Asharfi Devi in favour of Riyazuddin & Sirajuddin, affidavit and receipt as Ex.IP50/1 to Ex.IP50/4.
52. During his cross examination, IP No.50 submitted that he along with his brother purchased plot No.8 measuring 100 sq. yd in the year 1984; and that at the time of purchase, apart from him, Abdul Sattar and Shahbuddin were present. He denied the suggestions that documents Ex.IP50/1 to Ex.IP50/4 were forged & fabricated and were not executed by Smt. Asharfi Devi; that no payment was made by him or his brother to Asharfi Devi; and that physical possession of the plot was not delivered to them.
On behalf of IP No.52 i.e. Salimudin, Naimuddin & Faimuddin
53. IP No.52 Naimuddin examined himself as IP52W/1. He led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP52/A and relied on the following documents:
1. GPA dated 23.05.1984 executed by Asharfi UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 36 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 Devi in favour of all 3 IPs as Ex.IP52/1;
2. Agreement to Sell executed by Asharfi Devi in favour of all 3 IPs as Ex.IP52/2; and
3. Affidavit Ex.IP52/3.
These documents were objected to by the Learned counsel for IP No.1 to 5 & 53 on the ground of mode of proof.
54. During his cross examination, IP No.52 submitted that there were no registered sale documents executed by Smt. Asharfi Devi in his favour; that he could not file any document to show his possession over the acquired land; that Sh. Abdul Sattar, Shahbuddin and Hassan Ali were witnesses to the documents executed by Smt. Asharfi Devi in his favour in the year 1984; that stamp papers were purchased by his father from Tis Hazari Courts; that he did not remember the date, month and year of the notarization of the documents by the Notary Public; and that he did not remember who were present at the time of notarization of documents. He denied that no plot in Khasra No.405 was sold by Smt. Asharfi Devi to him or his brothers; that he never remained in possession of the plot in Khasra No.405; that documents Ex.IP52/1 to Ex.IP52/3 were forged & fabricated documents and did not bear thumb impression of Smt. Asharfi Devi; and that he had no concern with the plot in question.
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 37 of 43 LAC No.48/2016On behalf of IP No.53 i.e. Asharfi Devi
55. On behalf of IP No.53, her son Hote Ram Bhati examined himself as IP53/W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.IP53/W1/A. In his cross examination on behalf of IP No.25 & 39, he denied that on 23.05.1984, half portion of plot No.5, Block A in Khasra No.392 measuring 100 sq. yd was sold by his mother to IP No.39; and that he did not have any right, title or interest in the same. He showed his ignorance with regard to the registration of FIR No.117/2000 at P. S. Sarita Vihar against him, his mother and other family members regarding sale of aforesaid property.
56. In his cross examination on behalf of IP No.10, 11, 16, 20, 36, 48, 49, 50 & 52, witness denied that 200 sq. yd of land in Khasra No.392 was sold by his mother on 23.05.1984 and therefore, he had no right, title or interest in the same.
FINDINGS
57. The Court gave a patient hearing to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, and has also minutely gone through the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced. After giving due consideration to all of the above, the issuewise findings are as follows:
UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 38 of 43 LAC No.48/2016ISSUE NO.1 Whether IPs have any right to receive the compensation, if so, how and to what extent? Onus on IPs
58. The onus to prove this issue was on the contesting IPs. IP No.1 to 5 & 53 claimed themselves to be the recorded owners of the acquired land whereas the other IPs submitted that they are the owners of lands of different measurement having purchased the same either from IP No.1 to 5 or from IP No.53 by way of Sale Documents.
59. IP No.10, IP No.11, IP No.16, IP No.23(a), IP No.23(c), IP No.32, IP No.36, IP No.50, and IP No.52 have placed reliance on original sale documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit executed in their favour whereas IP No.20, IP No.25, IP No.39, and IP No.49 have filed photocopies of the sale documents to prove their ownership over the plots of land which they claimed to have purchased from the recorded owners. IP No.34 and IP No.48 have not filed any documents in support of their claims. All these sale documents, relied upon by the contesting IPs, are notarized documents i.e. unregistered documents.
60. Neither of the documents filed by contesting IP's were put to the witness who appeared on behalf of IP No.1 to 5 & IP UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 39 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 No.53 nor these documents were got proved by calling any of the witnesses. Further, there is no revenue record to show mutation of any parcel of acquired land in favour of any of the objecting IP's. Perusal of the cross examination of the witnesses who deposed on behalf of the objecting IP's show that majority of them had little or no knowledge about the documents on which they placed reliance to prove their ownership.
61. IP No.12 to 15, 17, 22, 23 (a & b), 26, 28, 32, 33, 39 & 41, in their joint claim filed through SPA holder Feorze Ahmed submitted that their status as owners of part of the acquired land was recognized vide judgment dated 22.12.1989 delivered by the Court of Smt. Urmila Rani, the then Learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in CS No.1588/89 (new) and 10/89 (old), and the orders of Sh. R. K. Gauba, the then MM and Sh. S. N. Dhingra, the then Addl. Sessions Judge which orders were passed during the course of proceedings initiated under FIR No.200/89 and FIR No.117/2000, respectively. At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that though uncertified copies of the above said documents were filed on record, none of the IP's exhibited them at the stage of leading evidence.
62. However, the Court has gone through the said documents. In so far as the judgment dated 22.12.1989 is concerned, the same was passed against IP No.1 to 4 i.e. recorded owners and defendants in the said civil suit on the basis of a compromise vide which a decree of permanent injunction was granted UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 40 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 against the defendants restraining them from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. This is revealed from the decree sheet dated 22.12.1989 passed in the judgment dated 22.12.1989. There is no finding to the effect that plaintiffs in the civil suit i.e. IP No. 6, 17, 18 & 19 herein were declared to be the owners of the parts of the acquired land qua which injunction was granted against the defendants.
63. The 2nd document i.e. order dated 18.01.1991 passed by the Court of Sh. R. K. Gauba, the then MM in trial arising out of FIR No.200/89, acquitted the accused i.e. IP No. 2 to 5 herein, on the basis of a compromise deed wherein it was mentioned that accused had sold off certain lands to the complainants i.e. IP No. 6, 7, 15 & 40 and also handed over possession of the same. Reference was also made in this compromise deed to the judgment dated 22.12.1989 passed by the Learned Civil Judge. The 3rd document is order passed by the then Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the anticipatory bail application of IP No.1 to 5 herein, in connection with FIR No.117/2000 wherein it was recorded that accused/applicants had taken compensation from the LAC for acquisition of land even after selling off the said land.
64. In the understanding of the Court, neither of these 2 documents conclusively proves the ownership claims of IP No. 12 to 15, 17, 22, 23 (a & b), 26, 28, 32, 33, 39 & 41 over the parcels of land which they had purportedly purchased from IP UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 41 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 No.2 to 5. Besides, the civil suit filed by IP No.6, 17, 18 & 19 was not for seeking declaration of ownership but for seeking perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction in regard to their peaceful possession. In any case, none of these documents have been exhibited or proved by any of the IPs.
65. On the other hand, IP No.1 to 5 and IP No.53 claimed to be the recorded owners of the acquired land. Though, they have not filed any document to show their ownership over the same, however, the other IPs have been claiming to have purchased the plots of land from these IPs i.e. IP No.1 to 5 & 53 acknowledging them to be recorded owners. Even as per Nakshamuntazamin forwarded by the LAC along with memorandum of parties, IP No.1 to 5 were shown as the recorded owners of Khasra No.s 372 (26), 373 (416), 374 (4
16), & 375 (400) and IP No.53 was shown as the recorded owner of Khasra Numbers 391 (416), 392 (416) & 405 (416) of Village Aali.
66. The notarized sale documents have no value in the eyes of law. An interest in an immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/ can pass on to the buyer/vendee only in case the documents purporting to transfer the interest in immovable property, have been registered. Moreover, none of these documents have been proved by calling the marginal witnesses. Therefore, the IP Numbers 6 to 52 have failed to prove their ownership over the acquired land. As a corollary IP Numbers 1 UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 42 of 43 LAC No.48/2016 to 5 & 53 are held to be the recorded owners of the acquired land as per their share.
67. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of IP No.1 to 5 & 53.
RELIEF
68. In view of the above discussion, IP No.1 to 5 & IP No.53 are held entitled to receive compensation in respect of the acquired land to the extent of their shares in Khasra Numbers 372, 373, 374, 375, 391, 392 & 405 of Village Aali. This reference is answered accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY GULATI) COURT ON 28.11.2018 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI UOI vs. Godhu & Ors Page 43 of 43