Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Purshotam Lal S/O Tek Chand on 29 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH.NEERAJ GAUR,
ADJ01, NORTH, DELHI
LAC No. 1610/2016
Union of India
Through LAC
North West, Delhi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Purshotam Lal S/o Tek Chand
R/o GD - 54, Pitampura, Delhi
2. Sushila Kumari W/o Sansar Gupta
R/o 133, Saini Enclave, Delhi - 92
3. Anju Trehan W/o Vijay Trehan
R/o H.No. 87, Sarovar Garden, Delhi
4. Subhash Chander S/o Sh. Haveli Ram
R/o E 231, Tagore Garden Ext., New Delhi
5. Omwati D/o Sh.Ram Narayan
R/o D 39, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
6. Ms. Neelu D/o Suresh Kumar
R/o VPO Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi
7. (i) Raj Singh (since deceased)
Through LRs
(a) Sudesh (widow)
(b) Sanjay (Son)
(c) Hari Om (Son)
LAC No.1622/16 Page 1 of 30
R/o Village Kulashi, Delhi
(ii) Ramesh (since deceased)
Through LRs.
(a) Maya Devi (Widow)
(b) Vikas (Son)
(c ) Pinki W/o Sh. Kapoor (Daughter)
(d ) Anita W/o Sh. Virender (Daughter)
(iii) Dalel
S/o Sh. Mehu
(iv) Rajbir
S/o Sh. Mehu
(v) Prem
S/o Sh. Mehu
All R/o Village Prahaladpur Bangar, Delhi
8. C.P.Gupta
S/o Sh. R.L.Gupta
R/o H.No. 10842, Shadipur, Delhi
9. (i) Ramphal
(ii ) Jai Prakash
LAC No.1622/16 Page 2 of 30
(iii) Satbir Singh
(iv) Rohtash
(v ) Mehtab
All S/o Sh. Sri Ram
& R/o Village Prahaladpur Bangar, Delhi
....... Interested persons
Date of Institution: 03022005
Date of Arguments: 25012019
Date of Judgment : 29012019
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference u/s 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to L.A. Act). The land of village Pehladpur Bangar came under Government acquisition and an Award No.6/05 06 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (herein after referred to as LAC). The dispute that has been referred is pertaining to apportionment of the compensation of total 7 bigha of land falling in khasra no.49/11m (10), 49/11m(10), 49/10/1m (10), 49/10/1m(010), 48/15m(010), 49/11m(10), LAC No.1622/16 Page 3 of 30 49/10/1m, 11m (20). The dispute was between 9 Interested Persons (hereinafter referred to as IPs). LAC also remitted an amount of Rs.34,50,733.50/ being compensation of acquired land in dispute (as adjudicated by LAC).
CLAIMS
2. IP7 seems to have a dispute with all the other IPs hence their case will be discussed at the outset. IP 7 are all sons of late Sh. Mehu. The claim of IP7 is that their father Sh. Mehu was the original recorded owner/bhumidar of several lands of village Pehladpur Bangar including the entire land in dispute involved in the present reference. Sh. Mehu expired on 2512 93 after which, the land in dispute was mutated in the name of IP7 on 250794. Sh. Mehu, in his lifetime, never sold the land in dispute to any person. On 279 01, IP7 obtained copy of khatoni and found that few pieces of land held by Sh. Mehu had been mutated in LAC No.1622/16 Page 4 of 30 the name of some other persons. It was revealed that said mutation was done on the basis of SaleDeeds dated 060188 purportedly executed by Sh. Mehu. It was further revealed that the said mutations were made on the basis of a forged GPA purportedly executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of a person namely Satish Bhardwaj who had appeared on behalf of IP7 during the mutation proceedings. IP7 alleged that the SaleDeeds dated 060188 and the GPA dated 17 1197 in favour of Satish Bhardwaj were bearing forged signatures of Sh. Mehu. IP7 thereafter filed civil suits for cancellation of the said forged documents and also challenged the mutation proceedings u/s 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short DLR Act). IP7 asserted that the physical possession of the land in dispute always remained with IP7 and IP7 is entitled to the compensation of the land in dispute.
LAC No.1622/16 Page 5 of 30
3. The claim of IP1 Sh. Purshottam Lal is that he is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 1 bigha situated in khasra no.49/11min.
4. The claim of IP2 Smt. Susheela Kumar, is that she is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 1 bigha situated in khasra no.49/11min which was purchased from Sh. Mehu vide SaleDeed dated 060188.
5. The claim of IP3 Smt.Anju Trehan, is that she is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 1 bigha situated in khasra no.49/10/1 which was purchased from Sh. Mehu vide SaleDeed dated 060188.
6. The claim of IP4 Sh. Subhash Chander, is that he is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 1 bigha situated in khasra no.49/10/1 and khasra no.48/15 which was purchased from Sh. Mehu vide SaleDeed dated 060188.
7. The claim of IP5 Smt. Omwati, is that she is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 1 bigha LAC No.1622/16 Page 6 of 30 situated in khasra no.49/11min.
8. The claim of IP6 Smt. Neelu, is that she is the owner/bhumidar of land measuring 2 bigha 10 biswas, situated in khasra no.49/10/1 and 49/11.
9. The claim of IP9 Sh. Ramphal, Sh. Jai Prakash, Sh. Satbir, Sh. Rohtash and Sh. Mehtab all sons of Shriram is that their father purchased 1250.3 sq. yards of land falling in khasra no.49/11 from one Sh. C.P. Gupta, through SaleDeed dated 020288. Sh. C.P. Gupta had earlier purchased 2 bigha 10 biswas of land falling in khasras no.49/10/2 and 49/11 from Sh. Mehu vide SaleDeed dated 060188. IP9 claimed that after the purchase, they were in possession of the land in dispute.
10. IP 8 did not file any claim . It is noteworthy that IP8 Sh. C.P. Gupta is the same person from whom the IP9 claimed to have purchased his land vide the SaleDeed dated 020288.
LAC No.1622/16 Page 7 of 30
11. IP7 filed replies to the claims of all other IPs and refuted their claims and vice versa.
12. Following issues were framed on 210110 :
(i) Which of the IP is entitled to receive the compensation and if so to what amount?
(ii) Relief.
EVIDENCE
13. IP No. 1 IP 1 examined himself and reiterated his case. He relied upon the Sale Deed Ex. IP 1 W 1/1, Khatoni for the year 199900 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/1, Khasra Girdawari for the year 200102 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/2. He was crossexamined only by IP 7.
14. IP No. 2 - IP 2 relied upon the sale deed Ex. IP 2 W 2/1. She also relied upon Khatoni for the year 199900 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/1, Khasra Girdawari for the year 200102 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/2. He was crossexamined only by IP 7. LAC No.1622/16 Page 8 of 30
15. IP No.3 - IP 3 relied upon the sale deed Ex. IP 3 W 2/1. She also relied upon Khatoni for the year 199900 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/1, Khasra Girdawari for the year 200102 Ex. IP 1 W 1 to 3 and 5 W 2/2. He was crossexamined only by IP 7.
16. IP No.4 - IP 4 relied upon the sale deed Ex. IP 7 W 1/D2, copy of passbook Ex. IP 4 W 1/1 and counter foil of the draft received Ex. IP 4 W 1/2. He was crossexamined on behalf of IP 5, 6 & 9. IP 4 also examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, Clerk from Canara Bank who proved the statement of account Ex. IP 4 W 3/1, account opening form, forwarding letter, passbook etc. marked as IP 4 W 3/2 to IP 4 W 3/5.
17. IP No. 5 - IP 5 examined Sh. R.N.Jindal as a witness. He relied upon certified copy of sale deed dated 06.01.1988 and 25.06.2003 Ex. IP 5 W 1/1 & Ex. IP 5 W 1/2. He further deposed that he personally was a witness in the sale deed. IP 5 also examined Sh. LAC No.1622/16 Page 9 of 30 Sunil Kumar Patwari who proved an order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the concerned SDM Ex. IP 5 W 2/1 in appellate proceedings filed against the mutation. IP 5 also examined Sh. Subhash Chander Patwari to prove the khatoni Ex. IP 5 W 3/1. IP 5 further examined Sh. Anoop Singh, Record Keeper from subregistrar office, to prove the registration of the sale deed dated 06.01.1988.
18. IP No. 6 IP 6 examined Sh. Suresh Kumar. He relied upon the sale deed dated 18.05.2001 Ex. IP 6 W 1/1. IP 6 also examined Sh. Anup Singh from sub registrar office for proving the registration of sale deed dated 18.05.2001. IP 6 also examined Sh. Chhatarpal Singh, kanoongo, Record Room, DM office for proving the Khasra Girdawaris Ex. IP 6 W 3/1, Khatoni Ex. IP 6 W 3/2 and the mutation order Ex. IP 6 W 3/3. IP 6 further examined Sh. Anil Khatri from SubRegistrar Office for proving the certified copy of Sale Deed LAC No.1622/16 Page 10 of 30 dated 18.05.2001 as Ex. IP 6 W 4/1. IP 6 lastly examined Sh. Bhim Singh, who deposed that IP 6 was like his daughter as the father of IP 6 namely Suresh Kumar was well known to him. He deposed that the sale deed dated 18.05.2001 was executed by the said Sh. Suresh Kumar vide GPA dated 14.05.2001. He deposed that he was a witness in the said GPA dated 14.05.2001. He also deposed that Sh. Suresh Kumar put his daughter/IP 6 in the actual physical possession of land measuring 2 bigha 10 biswas who continued to enjoy the possession till the land was acquired.
19. IP No. 7 - IP 7 examined Sh. Prem (one of IPs) as the first witness who reiterated the claim. He relied upon the certified copies of various litigations/complaints Ex. IP W 7/1 to 4. He was subjected to a very lengthy crossexamination by all the other IPs.
20. IP 7 further examined Sh. Surender Kumar, a LAC No.1622/16 Page 11 of 30 Court Official who brought a case file and proved the copy of the court record as Ex. IP 7 W 2/1 & 2. The witness namely Romanas Ekka was another court official who brought the judicial file of cases titled as Raj Singh Vs. Anju, Raj Singh Vs. Subhash Chander, Raj Singh Vs. C.P.Gupta, Raj Singh Vs. Purshottam and Raj Singh Vs. Omwati. The copies of the judicial record are marked as Ex. IP 7 W 1/1 to 5.
21. Another witness of IP 7, Sh. S.K.Vashisht, Kanoongo proved the certified copy of khatoni as Ex. IP 7 W 4/1. Sh. Chhatarpal Singh, Kanoongo, brought the mutation case file titled as Purshottam Singh Vs. Raj Singh and Sushila Kumar Vs. Raj Singh and copies are Ex. IP 7 W 5/1 and 2.
22. IP 7 also examined Sh. Satish Bharadwaj who deposed that IP 7 had not given him any Special Power of Attorney for any purpose. He stated that he did not even know IP 7 and had not given any LAC No.1622/16 Page 12 of 30 statement on behalf of IP 7 to the mutating authority/Tehsildar for sanctioning mutation in favour of any person. He deposed that Sh. Ram Kumar Aggarwal was a Tehsildar who had requested him to become a witness of his son Rishi Jindal to identify Sh. Rishi Jindal in some proceedings at Tehsil at Kanjhawala. On the request of the said Sh. Rishi, he (Satish Bharadwaj) signed on blank sheets written with his name and parentage and the signatures were made only for identification of Sh. Rishi. He deposed that he did not know the parties in the SPA dated 17.05.1997.
23. IP No. 9 - IP 9 examined himself and he relied upon the sale deed dated 02.02.1988 Ex. IP 9 W 1/1.
24. IP 9 also examined Sh. Anup Singh from office of SubRegistrar to prove the registration of sale deeds dated 06.01.1988 and 02.02.1988 Ex. IP 7 W 1/D 1 and IP 9 W 1/1.
LAC No.1622/16 Page 13 of 30
25. No other IP led any evidence. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused. 26. Findings on Issue No. 1 The interest of IP 7 is in conflict with the interest of all other IPs. For the sake of convenience, IP 1 & IP IP 9 will be referred as "other IPs". The case of IP 7 is based on following foundations:
a) That Sh. Mehu did not execute any sale deed on 06.01.1988 as alleged by all other IPs and the sale deeds relied by other IPs are forged and fabricated documents;
b) That the purported sale deed relied by other IPs are void ab initio being in contravention with Section 33 r/w Section 45 of the DLR Act;
c) No possession was enjoyed by any of the other IPs and the possession continued with IP 7 till the land was acquired.
d) The mutation entries in favour of other IPs is not LAC No.1622/16 Page 14 of 30 reliable as it was in violation of the Delhi Land Revenue Act.
27. I will take up the grounds one by one. The first ground is regarding the genuineness of sale deeds relied by other IPs. The sale deeds that have been placed on record are detailed as under:
i. Ex. IP 7 W 1/D 1 Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Sh. C.P.Gupta in respect of 2 bigha 10 biswas. (Relied by IP 9) ii. Ex. IP 9 W1/1 Sale deed dated 02.02.1988 executed by Sh. C.P.Gupta in favour of Shriram in respect of 1250.3 sq. yards. (Relied by IP 9) iii. Ex. IP 5 W1/1 (also Ex. IP 5 W 4/1) - certified copy of Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Sh. Renu Wadhwa in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 5) iv. Ex. IP 5 W1/2 - certified copy of Sale deed dated 25.06.2003 executed by Renu Wadhwa in LAC No.1622/16 Page 15 of 30 favour of Smt. Omwati in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 5) v. Ex. IP 6 W1/1 - Sale deed dated 18.05.2001 executed by Sh. Suresh Kumar in favour of Neelu in respect of 2 bigha 10 biswas. (Relied by IP 6) vi. Ex. IP 7 W1/D2 (also Ex. IP 4 W 4/A) - Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Sh. Subhash Chander in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 4) vii. Ex. IP 3 W2/1 (also Ex. IP 7 W 1/D3 & Ex. IP 3 W 4/A) - Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Anju Trehan in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 3) viii. Ex. IP 1 W1/1 - Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Purshottam Lal in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 1) ix. Ex. IP 2 W4/A - Copy of Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 executed by Sh. Mehu in favour of Sushil LAC No.1622/16 Page 16 of 30 Kumar in respect of 1 bigha. (Relied by IP 2).
28. Ld. Counsel for IP 7 argued that the sale deeds mentioned above bear forged signatures of Sh. Mehu and are unreliable pieces of evidence. The concerned witnesses who proved the aforesaid sale deeds have been duly crossexamined on behalf of IP 7 however the testimonies of the concerned witnesses could not be shaken and the witnesses could stand the test of crossexamination. The sale deeds have been duly registered and carry additional presumption in their favour of genuineness and due registration. The document/sale deeds of the year 1988 have become 30 years old and carry a presumption u/s 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. IP 7 has failed to impeach the genuineness of the sale deed proved by other IPs on record. The burden to prove forgery was upon IP7 who alleged it but no positive and cogent evidence has been led by IP7 to prove the allegation. LAC No.1622/16 Page 17 of 30
29. Now, I will examine the second limb of argument of IP 7 to challenge the validity of the transfer/transactions that were purportedly made through the aforesaid sale deeds. It was argued that IP 7 has proved on record that the total holdings of Sh. Mehu as on 06.01.1988 was 28 bigha 8 biswas. He highlighted that the khatoni Ex. IP 7 W 4/1 proved by office Kanoongo Sh. S.K.Vashisht shows the total holding of Sh. Mehu as 28 bigha 8 biswas. He argued that no attempt was made during the cross examination of Sh. S.K.Vashisht to controvert the fact regarding the total holding of Sh. Mehu as 28 bigha 8 biswas. He further argued that even during cross examination of the other witness of IP 7 namely Sh. Prem S/o Sh. Mehu, no such attempt was made. He concluded by submitting that the transactions purportedly made on 06.01.1988 were void ab initio and consequently, no right, title or interest was LAC No.1622/16 Page 18 of 30 created through the purported sale deeds.
30. I need to examine the legal provisions for deciding this argument. Section 33 of the DLR Act restricts the transfer of any land by a bhumidar where as a result of transfer, the transferor is left with less than 8 standard acres (38 bighas 8 biswas) of land in Delhi. Under section 33 (2) of the DLR Act, a Bhumidar who is holding less than 8 standard acres (38 bighas 8 biswas) of land, is not precluded to make such transfer if the transfer is of the entire land held by him. Under Section 45 of the DLR Act, any transfer made in contravention of Chapter III of the DLR Act shall be void. I shall now examine the facts proved on record in the light of the aforesaid provisions. As per the khatoni proved on record, Sh. Mehu was holding 28 bigha 8 biswas of land. The witness Sh. Prem (IP 1 W 1) deposed in his evidence that Sh. Mehu was having 28 bighas 8 biswas of land LAC No.1622/16 Page 19 of 30 holding. This particular fact has not been controverted by any of the other IP during the crossexamination. The holding of Sh. Mehu has also been proved through the witness Sh. S.K.Vashisht who proved the khatoni. None of the IP attempted to refute the said holding of Sh. Mehu even during crossexamination of Sh. Vashisht. It implies that the other IPs did not dispute the fact that the holding of Sh. Mehu was less than 8 standard acres. On the other hand, whenever any witness was crossexamined on behalf of IP 7, a categorical suggestion was given to the witness that Mehu's total holdings was 28 bigha 8 biswas. Despite this, none of the IP led any positive evidence to show that after the purported sale of 06.01.1988, Sh. Mehu was left with more than 8 standard acres of land in Delhi. At the same time, it could also not been proved that Sh. Mehu had sold out his entire holdings. Ld. Counsel for IP 7 relied upon a judgment titled as LAC No.1622/16 Page 20 of 30 "Sukhbir Singh Kemwal Vs. GNCT of Delhi"
decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court WP ( c) 3316 /10 and CM 2393/11 decided on 29.10.2014.
31. From the facts proved on record, I can hold that Sh. Mehu was holding less than 8 standard acres of land and he did not sell his entire holdings on 06.01.1988. Therefore the sale of land made on 06.01.1988 was in violation of Section 33 of the DLR Act. Each sale transaction made on 06.01.1988 becomes void u/s 45 of the DLR Act. No right, title or interest could be conveyed or conferred through a void transaction. Consequently, no effect can be given to the sale deeds relied by other IPs.
32. I will now examine the effect of mutation in the revenue record relied by other IPs. Under section 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, a Tehsildar is competent to direct the Patwari to record transfer or succession only in undisputed cases. But where the LAC No.1622/16 Page 21 of 30 transfer is disputed or is in contravention of DLR Act, all the Tehsildar can do is to refer the case to the Revenue Assistant. It is the Revenue Assistant who can hold an inquiry and decide the issue and direct the amendment in the Register. One of the paramount object of the DLR Act is to restrict the fragmentation of land and this is precisely the intent behind Section 33, 42 & 45 of the Act. The sale deeds in favour of other IPs was in respect of 1 bigha or so of land and was apparently in violation of the DLR Act. It was incumbent upon the concerned Tehsildar to rule out any violation of the DLR Act by not making the mutation himself but by referring the dispute to the concerned Revenue Assistant. The Tehsildar however did the changes in the register himself, that he was not competent to do. Ld. Counsel for IP 7 has relied upon a judgment titled as "Gurcharan Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi" decided by Delhi High Court in WP LAC No.1622/16 Page 22 of 30 (C) 6612 / 11 decided on 02.07.2012. Moreover, Sh. Satish Bharadwaj (the purported SPA of Sh. Mehu who was responsible for the mutation entries) denied being authorized by Sh. Mehu.
33. From the foregoing discussion, I can conclude that mutation entries in favour of other IPs are not providing any rescue to the case of the other IPs.
34. The other IPs have also asserted a claim over compensation on the basis of cultivatory possession. Ld. Counsel for other IPs argued that the khasra girdawaris have been proved to show that the respective pieces of land were under cultivation. I may firstly note the fact that the other IPs had purchased small plots of land. Secondly, none of them have stated or proved that they were in 'cultivatory' possession of their respective pieces of land. The khasra girdawaris brought on record are for the period after the year 2000 although the lands were purchased LAC No.1622/16 Page 23 of 30 in the year in the year 1988. The absence of proof of khasra girdawaris for a long duration of time creates a doubt on the genuiness of the record shown in the khasra girdawaris that have been brought on record. It is very common that the entries in khasra girdawaris are made on the basis of mutation entries and not on the basis of spot inspection. Moreover, no proof of any yield of any crop has been proved on record. No photograph has been filed to show the physical possession of the IPs over their respective plots. From the facts that have been brought to the record, it is difficult to infer that the other IPs were enjoying the physical possession of their respective plots. The claims of other IPs has to fail on the basis of possession.
35. There is another dispute between IP 6 and IP 9 and I propose to adjudicate the same. The undisputed facts interse IP 6 & 9 is that Sh. Mehu sold 2 bigha 10 LAC No.1622/16 Page 24 of 30 biswas of land to Sh. C.P.Gupta vide Sale Deed dated 06.01.1988 (proved as Ex. IP 9 W 1/2). The claim of IP 9 is that he purchased 1250 sq. yards of land from Sh. C.P.Gupta vide Sale Deed dated 02.02.1988 ( Ex. IP 9 W1/1). Whereas, the case of IP 6 is that Sh. C.P.Gupta appointed Sh. Suresh as his GPA dated 14.05.2001 and the said Sh. Suresh executed a Sale Deed dated 18.05.2001 in favour of IP 6. Ld. Counsel for IP 9 argued that once Sh. C.P.Gupta had sold 1250 sq. yards of land to IP 9, any further transfer made by Sh. C.P.Gupta will be invalid qua 1250 sq. yards. Ld. Counsel for IP 6, on the other hand argued that the Sale Deed dated 02.02.1988 was never acted upon and no mutation in favour of IP 9 was carried out. He argued that IP 6 was a bonafide purchaser of entire 2 bigha 10 biswas of land after purchasing it from the recorded owner Sh. C.P.Gupta. Mutation was duly carried out in favour of IP 6 and she has better LAC No.1622/16 Page 25 of 30 entitlement than IP 9.
36. IP 9 has been able to prove the Sale Deed dated 02.02.1988 in his favour. Its registration has also been proved. Once Sh. C.P.Gupta had alienated 1250 sq. yards of land in favour of IP 9, any further sale of the same land cannot be given effect because Sh. C.P.Gupta ceased to have any title therein post 02.02.1988. From this discussion, I can conclude that in between IP 6 & 9, IP 9 has better entitlement over 1250 sq. yards of land.
37. Ld. Counsel for other IPs further argued that even if it is assumed that the Sale Deed made on 06.01.1988 were void, IP 7 will still not be entitled to compensation. U/s 42 of the DLR Act, if such transfer is made in contravention of Section 33 of the DLR Act, the land has to vest in the Gaon Sabha. He argued that in such eventuality, the compensation is to be paid to Gaon Sabha and not to IP 7.
LAC No.1622/16 Page 26 of 30
38. U/s 42 of the DLR Act, where a transfer of any holding has been made in contravention of Section 33 of DLR Act, a suit for ejectment at the instance of the land holder or the Gaon Sabha lies against the transferee or possessor. The consequence provided u/s 42 of the DLR Act is a suit for ejectment and not vesting of land in the Gaon Sabha. Therefore, the compensation cannot be given to Gaon Sabha as submitted by Ld. Counsel for other IPs.
39. I will now examine what should be the apportionment of the compensation. It needs no reiteration that the apportionment should be just and reasonable. Though the Sale Deeds dated 06.01.1988 are hit by Section 33 & 45 of the DLR Act. However, the vendees were not malafide purchasers. It will be unjust if IP7, who in fact entered into sale transactions with the other IPs, is allowed to take the entire compensation. It will be equally unjust if the LAC No.1622/16 Page 27 of 30 other IPs, who purchased their pieces of plots from IP 7 on payment of consideration, are deprived off compensation. All these IPs who were bonafide purchasers of their respective plots have a right to get a refund from IP7 of the consideration amount for the void transfers done by Sh. Mehu. However, it will be unjust and unreasonable if these IPs are driven to another round of litigation for getting the refund of consideration and for damages for the void transactions. The justice demands that in the present proceedings itself, the disputes should be put to rest. Since IP7, who entered into the sale transactions in contraventions of the provisions of DLR Act was an equal party, he should be treated equally with the other IPs and should share equal liability for the void transactions. I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if the compensation amount is shared equally in between IP7 on the one hand and the other IPs on the LAC No.1622/16 Page 28 of 30 other hand.
40. From the foregoing discussion, I hold that the compensation of the land in dispute will be apportioned in the following manner:
a. IP7 and IP1 for 1 bigha land of khasra no.49/11m 50:50;
b. IP7 and IP2 for 1 bigha land of khasra no.49/11m 50:50;
c. IP7 and IP3 for 1 bigha land of khasra no.49/10/1m 50:50;
d. IP7 and IP4 for 10 biswas in khasra no.49/10/1m and 10 biswas in 48/15m (total 20 biswas) - 50:50;
e. IP7 and IP5 for 1 bigha land of khasra no.49/11m 50:50;
f. IP7 and IP9 for 1250 sq. yards of land of khasra no.49/10/1m 50:50;
g. IP7 and IP6 (for 2 bigha 10 biswas minus 1250 sq. yards) of land of khasra no.49/10/1m & 49/11m 50:50. This apportionment has been made after holding that IP9 has proved a better title vis avis IP6 over 1250 sq. yards of land sold by Sh. C.P Gupta to IP9 on 02021988.
LAC No.1622/16 Page 29 of 30
41. Issues are accordingly decided.
42. The reference petition is answered.
43. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IPs in above terms as per above findings subject to filing of necessary documents and completion of necessary formalities.
44. Copy of this judgement be sent to the LAC.
45. District Nazir will distribute the amount as per above observation to the entitled IP after receiving the amount from concerned bank.
46. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open court
NEERAJ
NEERAJ GAUR
On 29th day of January, 2019 GAUR Date:
2019.01.29
15:20:15
+0530
(NEERAJ GAUR)
ADJ01, NORTH, ROHINI
DELHI
LAC No.1622/16 Page 30 of 30