Delhi District Court
Sh. Devender Kumar vs . on 11 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(WEST)02, TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
LAC No. 19A/10/08
Unique ID case No. 02401C0831392008
Union of India
Vs.
1. Sh. M. Gulfam Qureshi
S/o Sh. S.S. Qureshi
R/o 7939, Bara Hindu Rao,
Street Shikehan, Delhi110006
2. Sh. Mohd. Aslam
S/o Sh. S.S. Qureshi
R/o 7939, Bara Hindu Rao,
Street Shikehan, Delhi110006
3. Sh. Jagdev Singh
S/o Sh. Abhey Ram
Village Mundka, Delhi ... IPs
&
1. Sh. Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
Village Mundka,
Delhi ... Disputant/Objector
LAC No. 19A/10/08 1/28
2
Through LRs
a) Smt. Angoori Devi, deceased
Through LRs
i) Smt. Asha
W/o Sh. Vijender
R/o H. No. 214, Village Jehangirpur,
District Jhajjar, Haryana
b) Smt. Kamlesh
Wd/o late Sh. Devender Singh
c) Master Sukhdev Muni
S/o late Sh. Devender Singh
d) Master Manjit
S/o late Sh. Devender Singh
(LRs Nos. c & d) through LR No. b), their mother and natural
guardian Smt. Kamlesh)
(LRs No. b, c, d) R/o H. No. 1121, Village Mundka, Delhi)
Award No. 03 /DC(W)/200506
Village : Mundka, Delhi
Date of Award: 27.01.2006
Date of institution of the case 31.05.2008
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 29.01.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment 11.02.2013
(Reference under Section 3031 of Land Acquisition Act)
LAC No. 19A/10/08 2/28
3
JUDGMENT :
In the present case, the land measuring 1703 bighas, 18 biswas pertaining to village Mundka, Delhi was notified for its acquisition under Land Acquisition Act vide Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act bearing No. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dated 21.03.2003 for the purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme under planned development of Delhi. Notification u/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act in this regard was also issued on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Collector (West District) announced a formal award on 27.01.2006 and on account of dispute regarding apportionment of compensation amount, the present reference u/s 3031 of Land Acquisition Act was referred to this court by the Land Acquisition Collector (West District).
Alongwith the above said reference, a cheque bearing no. 204585 dated 03.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.32,78,590/ was also sent to the court and the said amount was fixed deposited at SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi on the basis of regular renewal after one year vide order dated 31.05.2008 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
2. Upon receipt of the present reference, the notices of the same were issued to the IPs and objector/disputant and accordingly they entered their appearance and filed their respective claim petitions.
3. In the claim petition filed on behalf of IP No.1 Sh. Mohd. Gulfam LAC No. 19A/10/08 3/28 4 Qureshi and IP No. 2 Sh. Mohd. Aslam, it has been stated that the said claimants were the recorded Bhumidar of the land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (110) and 16/12 (412) total measuring area 6 Bhighas 2 Biswas in which Mohd. Gulfam Qureshi has 42/122th share and Mohd. Aslam has 38/122th share i.e. total measuring area 4 Bigha 0 Biswas and the same was in possession of the said claimants from the date of its purchase till LAC (West) took over the possession of land from claimants. It is further stated that S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram sold the above said land for a consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mohd. Gulfam Qureshi and Mohd. Aslam Qureshi in the office of Sub Registrar Delhi and after that mutation of land in question also was sanctioned in favour of IP Nos. 1 & 2 in the revenue estate of village Mundka and IP Nos. 1 & 2 become recorded Bhumidar of 4 Bighas and 0 Biswas of land in question and the same had been in their possession since 26.7.1988 till the date on which the possession was taken by the LAC (West). It is stated that the aforesaid mutation of the land in question in favour of IP Nos. 1 & 2 was never challanged by any person at any point of time and hence it has become final. It is further stated that after purchase the aforesaid land, the same had been fenced by IP Nos. 1 & 2 and they continuously used the land as agricultural land and the Khasra Girdawari of land in question had also been issued in the name of Mohd. Gulfam Qureshi and Mohd. Aslam Qureshi. It is stated that Sh. Devender Singh s/o Sh. Mange Ram, LRs of Sh. Joginder Singh and wife of Mange Ram filed a LAC No. 19A/10/08 4/28 5 suit No. 525/2000 for permanent injunction in respect of land in question against Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain but the same was dismissed on 11.7.2001 and thereafter four suits for declaration and injunction were also filed by the above said persons against the claimantsMohd. Gulfam Qureshi and Mohd. Aslam Qureshi, but the same were also dismissed. It is further stated that S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar sold out land in question and IP Nos. 1 & 3 on 26.7.1988 and thereafter they had left no right, title or interest in respect of land in question and after death of the said persons, their LRs had also no right, title or interest in respect of the land in question. It is stated that S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar had handed over the possession of land in question to the IP Nos. 1 & 2 from the date of purchase and claimant has been in possession of the land since purchase of the same and notice u/s 9 (1) & 10 (1) has also been issued in favour of the claimant and the compensation amount has also been assessed in their favour as they were the only persons, who were entitle to receive amount of compensation and it has been prayed that the amount compensation of Rs.21,49,896.32 may be paid to IP Nos. 1 & 2 herein.
4. The reply to the aforesaid claim petition of IP Nos. 1 & 2 have been filed on behalf of the LRs of the deceased disputant/objector and therein it has been stated that the claim filed on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 & 2 was not legally maintainable. It is further stated that the claimants were not having any share in LAC No. 19A/10/08 5/28 6 the amount of compensation assessed for the land in question as alleged. It is denied that the claimants have ever been in possession of the land in question or that the LAC (West) took over the possession of the land in question from the claimants. It is stated that the alleged sale deed dated 26.7.1988 and 20.1.1989 in favour of IP Nos. 1 to 3 and in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain were false, fictitious, forged, fabricated, bogus, sham, fraudulent, invalid and illegal documents and they were not binding upon the LRs of deceased disputant. It is stated that the disputant late Sh. Devender Singh and his brothers namely Sh. Joginder Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar had never visited the office of the Sub Registrar for the purpose of executing any sale deed. It is further stated that the deceased disputant and his brothers namely Sh. Joginder Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar had very cordial family relations with Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain and Smt. Angoori Devi, the deceased mother of the disputant always treated him as her real brother and entire family had great faith and confidence in Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain and he used to get many papers signed by the disputant and his two brothers in connection with the court cases and mutation if any sanctioned in favour of IP Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of alleged sale deeds does not confer any title in favour of the said IPs. It is further stated that total holding of the deceased disputant and his brothers was admittedly less than eight standard acres and according to the provisions of section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, no Bhumidar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift or otherwise any land to any person where as a result of transfer, the transferor shall be left with less LAC No. 19A/10/08 6/28 7 than eight standard acres in the Union Territory of Delhi. It is stated that the alleged transfer of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas in favour of the IPs/ Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain by virtue of the alleged sale deeds dated 26.7.1988, the deceased disputant and his brothers were admittedly still left with 1 Bigha 18 Biswas of land which is alleged to have been transferred in favour of the IPs/Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain by virtue of the alleged sale deed dated 20.1.1989 and since the entire land was not sold, sale deeds in question were absolutely void and no title could be claimed on that basis by the IP Nos. 1 to 3 as according to the provisions of section 45 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act any transfer made by or on behalf of the Bhumidar in contravention of this chapter shall be void. All other averments made on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 & 2 have also been denied on behalf of the LRs of the disputant/objector and it has been prayed that the claim petition filed on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 & 2 may be dismissed.
5. In the claim petition filed on behalf of IP No.3 Sh. Jagdev Singh, it has been stated that the claimant was the recorded Bhumidar land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (110) and 16/12 (412) total measuring area 6 Bighas 2 Biswas in which Sh. Jagdev Singh has 42/122nd share i.e. total measuring area 2 Bigha 2 Biswas and the same was in possession of claimant from the date of its purchase i.e. 22.2.2001 till LAC (West) took over the possession of land in question from claimant. It is further stated that initially S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram sold the land in LAC No. 19A/10/08 7/28 8 question for the consideration of Rs.15,000/ and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi and thereafter said Rajinder Kumar Jain executed a sale deed in favour of the claimant vide registered sale deed dated 22.2.2001 vide document no. 1928 volume no. 9829 at page no. 85 to 92 dated 22.2.2001 and mutation of land in question was also sanctioned in favour of IP No. 3 in respect of land in question situated in revenue estate of village Mundka and IP No. 3 became recorded Bhumidar of 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas of land in question and same had been in his possession since 22.2.2001 and till the date on which the possession of the same was taken by LAC (West). It is stated that the above said mutation of the land in question in favour of IP No. 3 was never challenged by any person at any point of time and hence it has become final. It is further stated that after purchase of the land in question had been fenced and continuously used as agricultural land and Khasra Girdawari of land in question had been issued in the name of Sh. Jagdev Singh, IP No. 3 and as such disputant/objector or their LRs have no right, title or interest in respect of the land in question. It is stated that the claimant has been in possession of the land since purchase of the same and notice u/s 9 (1) & 10 (1) was also in his favour and compensation amount was also assessed in his favour and he was the only person who was entitle to receive the amount of compensation and it has been prayed that the amount of the compensation i.e. Rs.11,28,695 may be paid to the IP No.3. LAC No. 19A/10/08 8/28 9
6. The reply to the aforesaid claim petition of IP No. 3 have been filed on behalf of the LRs of the disputant/objector and the said reply is almost on the similar lines as has been filed by the LRs of deceased disputant/objector to the claim of IP No. 1 & 2.
7. In the claim petition filed on behalf of LRs of the disputant/ objector, it has been stated that one Sh. Bharat Singh, the predecessorininterest of the claimants was the recorded Bhumidar in respect of about 20 Bighas and 12 Biswas of agricultural land in village Mundka, Delhi and the said Sh. Bharat Singh had two sons namely Sh. Chet Ram and Sh. Mange Ram, who is the father of the deceased disputant. It is stated that Sh. Mange Ram had died about 3637 years back leaving behind his widow Smt. Angoori Devi, three sons namely Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Devender Singh (deceased disputant) and Sh. Krishan Kumar and four daughters namely S/Smt. Pushplata, Kusum Devi, Asha Devi and Sharda Devi. It is stated that Sh. Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Mange Ram died on 23.10.1989 due to electrocution and he was unmarried and issueless and all his rights, title and interest in respect of the said property devolved upon her natural mother Smt. Angoori Devi. It is further stated that Sh. Joginder Singh, the second son of Sh. Mange Ram also died on 13.3.2000 leaving behind his widow Smt. Rampati, one son Master Ghanshyam and one daughter Kumari Reenu and all of them inherited his share in the properties left by him. It is further stated that Sh. Devender Singh, the third son of Sh. Mange LAC No. 19A/10/08 9/28 10 Ram met with a serious accident and as a result of which both his legs were amputated from knee and he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 88 % and he was the only earning member of the family of late Sh. Mange Ram and getting the suit land cultivated with the help of his family members and by engaging labourers. It is further stated that Sh. Bharat Singh the fatherinlaw of the claimant had during his lifetime executed a Will which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi on 12.1.1982 and registered on 16.1.1982 bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to his grandsons namely Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Devender Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar to the extent of 1/3rd share each. It is further stated that by virtue of a mutual family arrangement and settlement arrived at on 9.7.1984 between Sh. Chet Ram and his family and the family of late Sh. Mange Ram, the land comprised in Khasra No. 16/9/2 (1 Bigha 10 Biswas) and 16/12 (4 Bighas 12 Biswas) situated in village Mundka, Delhi fell to the share of claimants' three sons namely S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Singh and Krishan Kumar and right from the year 1984, three brothers till the time they were alive and thereafter their family members have been in continuous, actual, physical cultivatory possession of the said land till its possession was taken over by the Government. It is stated that one Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram in November, 2000 and the said LRs were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction against LAC No. 19A/10/08 10/28 11 him and in the said suit, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain made a statement that he had purchased 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas of the land out of the suit property from late Sh. Joginder Singh, Krishan Kumar and Sh. Devender Singh and he has further sold the same to the defendant no.3 Sh. Jagdev Singh during the pendency of the above said suit and on the basis of the said statement, the above said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi vide order dated 11.7.2001. It is further stated that on 12.7.2001, the IP No. 3 Sh. Jagdev Singh accompanied by IP No.2 Mohd. Aslam, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain & Sh. Gulfam ( IP No.1) and 23 other persons came to the suit property and tried to interfere in the peaceful cultivatory possession of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram and also threatened that they would damage the standing crops and forcibly dispossess them from the suit land, however they could not succeed in their illegal design due to the timely intervention of the neighbourers and respectables of the village and the said incident was lodged in the PS Kanjhawla, Delhi. It is stated that in the night of 17/18.7.2001, the above said persons and 23 other persons during the night hours and at the back of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram ploughed a portion of land in dispute by means of a tractor and damaged the standing crops and LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram were surprised and shocked to see the damage to their crops and immediately they went to the PS Kanjhawla to lodge a report of the incident and police called Sh. Jagdev Singh (IP No.3) and asked him to pay the compensation for the damage to the crops of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram but he refused. It is further stated that total holding of the deceased disputant and his LAC No. 19A/10/08 11/28 12 brothers was admittedly less than eight standard acres and according to the provisions of section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, no Bhumidar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift or otherwise any land to any person, where as a result of transfer, the transferor shall be left with less than eight standard acres in the Union Territory of Delhi. It is stated that the alleged transfer of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas in favour of the IPs/ Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain by virtue of the alleged sale deeds dated 26.7.1988, the deceased disputant and his brothers were admittedly still left with 1 Bigha 18 Biswas of land which is alleged to have been transferred in favour of the IPs/Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain by virtue of the alleged sale deed dated 20.1.1989 and since the entire land was not sold, sale deed in question were absolutely void and no title could be claimed on that basis by the IP Nos. 1 to 3 as according to the provisions of section 45 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act any transfer made by or on behalf of the Bhumidar in contravention of this chapter shall be void. It has also been stated that IP Nos. 1 to 3 were not entitled to any share in the compensation and it has been prayed that LRs Nos. 1 b to 1d of deceased disputant may be held entitled to 5/12th share of the compensation and the LR No. 1a (i) of the deceased disputant may also be held entitled to 5/12th share of the compensation amount alongwith proportionate interest accrued thereon.
8. The reply to the aforesaid claim petition of disputant/objector have LAC No. 19A/10/08 12/28 13 been filed on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 to 3 and therein it has been stated that the present LRs of deceased Sh. Devender Singh has no locusstandi to file the present claim as they have no right, title or interest in respect of the compensation amount, moreover, they were not recorded owner and their elder member of the family had already sold out the land comprised in Khasra No. 16/9/2 (110) and 16/12 (412) total 6 Bighas 2 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi and now they were agitating the matter for their greed and infact they have no right, title or interest in respect of the land in question or assessed by the LAC (West) in favour of the IP Nos. 1, 2 & 3. It is further stated that initially S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Singh, Krishan Kumar all sons of late Sh. Mange Ram sold the land for a consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mohd. Gulfam Qureshi and Mohd. Aslam Qureshi i.e IP Nos. 1 & 2 vide registered sale deed duly executed by above mentioned sons of Sh. Mange Ram as documents no. 13337 volume no. 5778 at page no. 146 to 148 on 27.7.1988 and document no. 709 volume no. 5968 at page no.82 to 84 on dated 29.1.1989 respectively and thereafter mutation of the said land was also sanctioned in favour of the IP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and since than IP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were in possession of land in question. It is pertinent to note that most of the contents of the present reply on behalf of IP Nos. 1 to 3 are almost on the similar lines as has been averred in the claim petitions filed on behalf of the said IPs. In addition to that, it has been stated that LAC No. 19A/10/08 13/28 14 there was no violation under section 33 of DLR Act in the execution of sale deed and moreover the mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of said sale deeds. It is further stated that since the possession of the land in question was taken over by the government from the IP No. 1 to 3 and sale deed dated 26.7.1988 and 20.1.1989 in favour of the IP No. 1 to 2 were legal and valid document and binding over the LRs of Sh. Krishan,Devender Singh and Joginder Kumar and as such IP No.1 to 3 were entitled to receive compensation amount in respect of the land in question which was already assessed in their favour by the LAC in award no. 3/DCW/20052006. Further, the averments made in the claim petition of the LRs of the disputant/objector have also been denied on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 to 3 and it has been prayed that the claim petition of the LRs of the disputant/objector may be dismissed and compensation amount may be given to the IP No.1 to 3 as per their respective share in the land in question.
9. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on 9.4.2009 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
ISSUES :
1) Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation and to what an extent?
2) Relief.
LAC No. 19A/10/08 14/28 15
10. In the evidence on behalf of IP Nos. 1 to 3, the IP No. 1 Sh. Gulfam Qureshi and IP No. 3 Sh. Jagdev Singh have examined themselves as IP1 and IP3 respectively. In addition to this, they have also examined IP1W1 Sh. Vijender, Patwari, Halqa Mundka and IP1W2 Sh. Om Prakash, UDC, Sub RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
11. In their evidence, disputant/objectors have not led any evidence despite opportunities being given and accordingly the opportunity granted to the objectors to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
12. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the IP Nos. 1 to 3 and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the IP Nos. 1 to 3. It is pertinent to note that arguments have not been addressed on behalf of disputant/objectors, despite opportunities being given.
13. The findings on the issues are as under :
14. ISSUE No. 1:
In order to prove their case on record, IP No.1 to 3 have examined LAC No. 19A/10/08 15/28 16 IP No.1 Sh. Gulfam Qureshi as IP, who has filed his evidence by affidavit (Ex. IP1/A) wherein it has been stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (10) and 16/12 (412) total measuring area 6 Bigha 2 Biswas having 42/122nd i.e. 2 Bigha 2 Biswas was in his possession from the date of its purchase i.e. 27.7.1988 till the LAC (West) took over the possession of the land in question and he has proved the copy of Khatauni in this regard as Ex. IP1/1. IP1 further deposed that initially Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram sold the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 26.7.1985 registered document no. 13337 in Book No. 1, Volume No.5778 at page Nos. 146148 dated 27.7.1988 in the office of Sub Registrar and he has proved the said sale deed as Ex. IP1/2. IP No.1 further deposed that the above said seller received the consideration amount of Rs.15,000/ in the shape of cheque no.066138 for Rs.10,000/ dated 9.6.1988 of Indian Overseas Bank and cheque no. 321179 dated 26.7.1988 of Rs.5,000/ of SBI, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. IP1 deposed that S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder and Krishan Kumar further sold out the share of land in question to his brother Sh. Mohd. Aslam i.e. 1 Bigha 18 Biswas vide registered sale deed which was Ex. IP1/3 which was registered document no. 792 in Book no.1, volume no. 5968 at page no. 82 to 84 dated 20.1.1989 having 38/122nd share in the land for consideration amount of Rs.15,000/ and the same was received by the above named persons vide cheque no. 8089261100256, 80892711005045 and 808928110025045 dated 20.1.1989 for Rs.5,000/ each and further the mutation was sanctioned in favour LAC No. 19A/10/08 16/28 17 of IP No. 1 and IP No. 2 vide misal no. Teh/PB/256/20002001 dated 17.3.2001 in respect of the respective share of IP No. 2 in respect of the land in question situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi and the same has been in possession thereof since the purchase of the same from Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder and Krishan Kumar, till the date on which the possession of the same was taken over by the LAC (West) and mutation order dated 17.3.2001 was never challenged till date by any person at any point of time hence it has become final. IP No. 1 further stated that after purchase of the land in question, the same has been fenced by IP Nos. 1 & 2 and they continuously used the land as agricultural land and cultivated various type of crops like wheat, Jawar, Bajra etc., on the land in question and form no. P4 Khasra Girdawari of the land in question had been issued in the name of Mohd. Gulfam Qureshi and Mohd.
Aslam Qureshi and he has proved the copy of the Khasra Girdawari from the year 198990, 199192, 199394, 1995, 19992000, 20002001, 20022003, 20032004 as Ex. IP1/4 (colly.). IP No. 1 deposed that Sh. Devender Singh, LRs of Sh. Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram and wife of Mange Ram had filed one civil suit no. 525/2000 for permanent injunction in respect of land in question against one Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.7.2001 and he has proved the certified copy of the said order in suit no. 525/00 as Ex. IP1/6. He has also proved the certified copies of orders in suit no. 318/06, 319/06, 320/06 and 321/06 dated 02.8.2008 as Ex. IP1/7 (colly.) IP No.1 deposed that Sh. Devender LAC No. 19A/10/08 17/28 18 Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar had sold out the land in question to IP Nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter the said persons or their legal heirs have no right, title or interest in respect of the land in question. He further deposed that the above named persons also handed over the possession of land in question to IP No. 1 & 2 on the date of its purchase and IP Nos. 1 & 2 were in possession of land in question since its purchase till the LAC (West) took over the possession of the same and the notice u/s 9 (i) and 10 (ii) LA Act was also issued in the names of IP Nos. 1 & 2 and compensation amount has also been assessed in their names and they were the only persons entitled to receive the compensation amount as per their respective share in respect of the land in question and they were entitle to the amount of compensation which was shown at serial no. 100 in the award page no. 35 and interest thereon.
15. In support of their case, IP Nos. 1 to 3 have also examined IP1W1 Sh. Vijender, Patwari, Halqa Mundka and IP1W2 Sh. Om Parkash, UDC from the office of Sub RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
IP1W1 Sh. Vijender, Patwari, Halqa Mundka produced the summoned record pertaining to the Khasra Girdwari of land between the period of 20052009 and have proved the same as Ex. IPW1/A (colly.).
IP1W2 Sh. Om Parkash, UDC from the office of Sub RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has produced the summoned record pertaining to the sale LAC No. 19A/10/08 18/28 19 deed executed by Sh. Joginder Kumar, Krishan and Devender Singh sons of Sh. Mange Ram in favour of Mohd. Gulfam on 27.7.1988 registered in their office on 27.8.1988 vide registration no. 13337, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 5778 at page nos. 146 to 148 and he has proved the certified copy of the same as IP1/2. IP1W2 further produced the record of the another sale deed executed by the above named persons in favour of Mohd. Aslam dated 20.1.1989 which was registered in their office on the same day vide registration no. 792, Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 5968 from pages 82 to 84 and he has proved the certified copy of the same as Ex. IP1/3.
16. IP No. 3 Sh. Jagdev Singh has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. IP3/A) wherein it has been stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (110) and 16/12 (412) total measuring 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas was in his possession from the date of its purchase i.e. 22.2.2001 till the LAC (West) took over the possession of the land and he has proved the copy of Khatauni in this regard as Ex. IP3/1. IP No.3 further deposed that initially S/Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram sold the land in question for the consideration of Rs.15,000/ and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain and he has proved the said sale deed as Ex. IP3/2 (colly.) and mutation of land in question was also sanctioned in favour of IP No. 3 vide misal no. TEH/PB/256/200001 dated 17.3.2001 measuring 2 Bighas and 3 situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, LAC No. 19A/10/08 19/28 20 Delhi and the same has been in his possession since 22.1.2001 till the date, on which the possession of the same was taken by LAC (West) and mutation order dated 17.3.2001 in his favour has become final. IP No.3 deposed that after purchase of the land, he fenced the same and used it as agricultural land and he has proved the Khasra Girdwari recorded in his name for the year 198990, 91 92, 9394, 19992000 issued in favour of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain as Ex. IP3/3 (colly.) and he has also proved the Khasra Girdwari in his name for the year 20002001 as IP3/4 (colly.). IP No.3 further deposed that Sh. Devender Singh s/o Sh. Mange Ram filed a Suit No.525/2007, but the same was dismissed on 11.7.2001 and the above named persons also filed suit bearing nos. 319/06, 320/06, 321/06, 318/06 but the same were also dismissed and he has proved the copies of the orders in this regard as Ex. IP3/5 (colly.), Ex. IP3/6 & Ex. IP3/7. IP No.3 deposed that Sh. Devender Singh, Joginder Singh and Krishan Kumar have sold the land in question to Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain, who sold out the said land to him and thereafter they or their representatives have no right, title or interest in respect of the land in question. IP No. 3 deposed that since its purchase, he was in possession of the land in question till LAC (West) took over the possession of the same during the compensation proceedings and notice u/s 9 (i) and 10 (ii) LA Act was also issued in his name in respect of the land in question and compensation amount in this regard was also assessed in award no. 3/DCW/200506 and that he was the only person to receive the compensation amount. IP3 also deposed that entire compensation amount shown at serial no. LAC No. 19A/10/08 20/28 21 100 in the award at page no. 35 in his name and interest thereon may be awarded to him.
17. In the present case, the IP No.1 Sh. Gulfam Qureshi has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ( IP1/A) and stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (10) and 16/12 (412) was in his possession from the date of its purchase i.e. 27.7.1988 till LAC (West) took over the possession of the said land and he has proved the Khatauni in this regard as Ex. IP1/1. He further stated that he had purchased the said land from its earlier owners S/Sh. Devinder Singh, Joginder Kumar and Krishan Kumar vide sale deed Ex. IP1/2 and IP1/3 and thereafter he alongwith he alongwith his brother Sh. Mohd. Aslam has been in possession of the said land and mutation of said land was also sanctioned in their favour vide misal no. TEH/PB/256/200001 dated 17.3.2001. In order to prove that they were recorded owners and were in possession of the land in question. IP1 has also proved Khasra Girdawari in respect of the concerned land for the year 198990 to 200304 as Ex. IP1/4 (colly.).
The important fact is that the aforesaid witness i.e. IP1 Sh. Gulfam Qureshi was cross examined on behalf of the LRs of the disputant/objector, however nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. In his cross examination on behalf of the LRs of the disputant/objector, IP No.1 denied the suggestion that Sh. R.K. Jain LAC No. 19A/10/08 21/28 22 interfered in the peaceful possession of late Sh. Mange Ram or that on 12.7.2001, the IP Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith 23 other persons went to the aforesaid land and tried to interfere in the peaceful cultivatory possession of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram. IP No.1 denied the suggestion that in the night of 17/18.7.2001, they had again gone to the aforesaid plot during the night hours and at the back of the LRs of late Sh. Mange Ram and ploughed a portion of land in dispute by means of a tractor and damaged the standing crops. He further denied the suggestion that three sale deeds in question were false, forged, fabricated, bogus and illegal documents or that the recital in the said sale deed regarding hand over the possession were wrong. IP1 further denied the suggestion that the signatures of the three persons on the sale deed were forged and fabricated or that he had never cultivated the land in question. IP1 also denied the suggestion that he had never cultivated or got cultivated the land subject matter of the present dispute or that he was deposing falsely in the court.
18. Further, IP3 Sh. Jagdev Singh has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. IP3/A) and has stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 16/9/2 (110) and 16/12 (412) total measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas was in his possession from the date of its purchase i.e. 22.2.2001 till LAC (West) took over the possession of the same and he has proved the Khatauni in this regard as Ex. IP3/1. IP3 also stated that after the purchase of the land from its initial owner vide sale deed Ex. IP3/2 (colly.), the mutation of the said land was LAC No. 19A/10/08 22/28 23 sanctioned in his favour vide Misal no. TEH/PB/256/200001 dated 17.3.2001 and the same has been in his possession since 22.1.2001 till the date on which its possession was taken over by the LAC (West). In order to prove that he was the recorded owner and was in possession of the land in question, the IP No.3 has proved the Khasra Girdwari in respect of the land in question pertaining to the relevant years as Ex. IP3/3 (colly.) and Ex. IP3/4 (colly.).
The important fact is that the aforesaid witness i.e. IP3 was also cross examined on behalf of the LRs of disputant/objector, however nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness. In his cross examination, on behalf of the LRs of disputant/objector, the IP3 denied that no sale deed was executed in his favour by Sh. R.K. Jain. He further denied the suggestion that he accompanied by Sh. Gulfam Qureshi and Aslam went to the land in question and interfered in peaceful possession of the said land or ploughed a portion of the land. IP3 denied the suggestion that the entire land in dispute was under actual, physical, cultivatory possession of LRs of Sh. Mange Ram. IP3 also denied the suggestion that he had never remained in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of the land in dispute or that his claim was false or that he was deposing falsely.
19. The case of the IP Nos. 1 to 3 have also been supported by IP1W1 Sh. Vijender, Patwari, Halqa Mundka, who produced the record pertaining to Khasra Girdawari of the concerned land between the period 20052009 and LAC No. 19A/10/08 23/28 24 have proved the same as Ex. IPW1/A (colly.).
The abovesaid witness i.e. IP1W1 was also cross examined on behalf of the LRs of disputant/objector, however nothing material has come which could be of any help to the said disputant/objector. In his cross examination on behalf of the LRs of disputant/objector, IP1W1 stated that the entries in Khasra Girdawari register for the period 200506 to 200910 have been entered by him after physical verification of the persons cultivating the land. He further stated that the entries shown in IP1W1/A at column MarkA to D have been made by him after verifying the persons cultivating the said land. IP1W1 denied the suggestion that the said entries were incorrect or were not in accordance with the actual position at the spot. IP1W1 denied the suggestion that Gulfam was not cultivating the said land as per his record or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Gulfam.
Case of IP Nos. 1 to 3 have also been supported by IP1W2 Sh. Om Prakash, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, who produced the summoned record pertaining to the sale deed executed by S/Sh. Joginder Kumar, Krishan Kumar and Devender Kumar all sons of Sh. Mange Ram in favour of Sh. Mohd. Gulfam on 27.7.1988 and has proved the certified copy of the same as Ex. IP1/2. He has also proved the another sale deed executed by the above named persons in favour of Sh. Mohd. Aslam dated 20.1.1989 as Ex. IP1/3.
LAC No. 19A/10/08 24/28 25
20. In the instant case, in view of the material on record in particular the revenue record produced by IP1W1 Sh. Vijender, Patwari, Halqa Mundka, it is evident that IP Nos. 1 to 3 were the recorded owners and were in possession of the land in question at the time when the same was acquired by the LAC (West) and as such they were entitled to receive the amount of compensation in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case cited as 2007 (98) DRJ 517 (DB).
In the above said case titled as, "Rama Shankar & Anr. Vs. Mukhtiare & Anr. {cited as 2007 (98) DRJ 517 (DB) }", it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
"After examining the provisions of the DLRA, we are satisfied that the question relevant for the purpose of payment of compensation for acquisition of the land in the instant case would have to be answered with reference to the records of the case which would indicate who were the bhumidars and who were in possession of the land in question. There can be no manner of doubt, as rightly found by the learned Additional District Judge, that in the instant case Kishori and Mukhtiare were the declared bhumidars and remained so till the land was acquired by the Government in the year 197374. Also, the possession was taken from them. It is they who would be entitled to be paid compensation".
21. In the present case, the LRs of disputant/objectors have also raised LAC No. 19A/10/08 25/28 26 issue regarding applicability of the provisions of Section 33 of Land Reforms Act which provides as that no bhumidar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift or otherwise any land to any person where as a result of such transfer, the transferor shall be left with less than eight standard acres in union territory of Delhi. It is stated that after alleged transfer of the land measuring 2 bigha 2 Biswas in favour of the IPs by virtue of the alleged sale deed dated 26.7.1988, the deceased disputant and his brothers were admittedly still left with 01 Bigha 18 Biswas of land which is alleged to have been transferred in favour of Sh. R.K. Jain and since entire land was not sold, sale deeds in question were absolute void and no title could be claimed on that basis by the IP Nos. 1 to 3 as according to the provision u/o 45 (1) of Delhi Land Reforms Act, any transfer made by or on behalf of bhumidar in contravention of the said chapter shall be void.
It is pertinent to note that the above said averments/facts averred on behalf of the LRs of disputant/objector have not been proved on record by them by leading evidence, despite opportunities being given. The perusal of record reveals that in the instant case, disputant/objectors have not led any evidence despite opportunities being given and accordingly the opportunity granted to the objectors to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
In these circumstances, no evidence whatsoever in respect of the above averments have been brought on record on behalf of the LRs of LAC No. 19A/10/08 26/28 27 disputant/objector. Even otherwise as far as the applicability of Section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act is concerned, the LRs of disputant/objector are not entitled to raise any grievance in this regard in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case cited as 46 (1992) DLT 682 (DB).
In the aforesaid case titled as, "Vidya Dhari Khanna Vs. Sandeep Khanna" { cited as 46 (1992) DLT 682 (DB) }", it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
"As regards Section 33 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the plaintiffs cannot make any grievance. The authorities under that act can make grievance against the donor if she violates any provisions of that law. This matter should not have any impediment in her way"
Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion & observations and having regard to the fact & circumstances of the instant case, it is clear that IP Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to receive the amount of compensation as per their respective proportionate share in the acquired land.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No.1 stands decided, accordingly.
22. RELIEF In view of the findings on the above said Issue No.1, the present reference u/s 3031 of LA Act is disposed of by holding that the above said IPs namely Sh. M.Gulfam Qureshi, Sh. Mohd. Aslam & Sh. Jagdev Singh are LAC No. 19A/10/08 27/28 28 entitled to receive the abovementioned amount of compensation in accordance with their respective proportionate shares. Accordingly, Nazir is directed to take steps to recall the amount of above mentioned FDR from the concerned bank in the form of cheques in the names of above said IPs after encashment of the aforesaid FDR and the said cheques be handed over to the above named IPs after deducting incometax as per rules on completion of necessary formalities by them.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 11.2.2013) ADJ02/West/Delhi
11.2.2013
LAC No. 19A/10/08 28/28
29
LAC No.19A/10/08
11.02.2013
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, the present reference u/s 3031 of Land Acquisition Act has been disposed of.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information .
File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 11.2.2013) ADJ02/West/Delhi
11.02.2013
LAC No. 19A/10/08 29/28