Delhi District Court
Lac No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union ... vs . Suraj Mal & Anr. 1/11 on 8 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 17A/10/08
New No. LAC-121/16
UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector
(District West) office at D.C. Office
Rampura, Delhi-110035.
versus
1. Sh. Suraj Mal (Deceased) through LRs
i). Smt. Santosh
D/o Smt. Bhagwani
R/o Village Nuna Majra,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.
2. Sh. Sukhbir Singh
S/o late Meer Singh
R/o Village Mundka,
Delhi-110041
....Interested persons
Award No. : 3/DCW/05-06
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 27.01.2006
Date of institution of the case : 18.01.2008
Date of reserving of judgment : 30.09.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.10.2016
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The present reference referred by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector (West)' under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect of award no. 03/DC(W)/2005-2006, in respect of Sl LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 1/11 No.365 as per Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.5,91,221/-. The interested parties are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all Interesting parties.
3. The amount of compensation sent by the Collector (West) has already been deposited in Punjab National Bank, Gokhle Market in the shape of fixed deposit with the instructions to renew the same on year to year basis as per order dated 18.01.2008 by Ld. Predecessor.
4. IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir filed the claim. In brief, facts are that Khasra No. 20/9/1/1 (1-2) at the time of notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and at the time of acquisition was wrongly recorded in the name of IP No. 1 Sh.Suraj Mal. It is stated that IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir are the sons of Sh. Mir Singh but both born out from different mothers. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir born out of wedlock between Sh. Mir Singh and second wife Smt. Manno. Sh. Mir Singh married to her after the death of her first husband Sh. Bharte in the year 1944. Deceased Sh.Bharte was also having two wives, therefore, after his death, the land owned by him devolved upon two wives, namely, Smt. Nante and Smt. Manno in equal shares. Consequently, Smt. Manno succeeded land measuring 8 Bigha 2 Biswa from her first husband Sh. Bharte at the time of second marriage with Sh.Mir Singh. She was declared Bhumidhar at the time of commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act on 20.07.1954 being the proprietor. She died in the year 1956 and after her LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 2/11 death IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir succeeded to her Bhudmidhari holdings being the only male descendant.
5. It is stated that Smt. Manno had a daughter, namely, Smt. Birmo from first marriage with Sh. Bharte, who was alive in the year 1956 but she did not succeed the Bhumidhari holding rights according to provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. She had also made statement before Tehsildar regarding relinquishing her rights in favour of IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir.
6. It is stated that in the year 1975 and 1976 Consolidation of holding operation commenced in the revenue estate of village Mundka and application for mutation was filed for substitution of names of legal heirs of late Smt. Manno before Consolidation Officer but Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.12.1979 illegally sanctioned mutation in favour of IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir in equal shares. IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal was not the son of Smt. Manno as he was step son and did not inherit any right, title in the land left by her, which was inherited by her from her first husband Sh. Bharte. Aggrieved by the illegal mutation order, a revision petition was filed before the financial commissioner, who wrongly dismissed the same. Therefore, a civil suit for declaration seeking the mutation order as null and void filed by IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir and same is pending in the civil court.
7. It is further stated that on account of pendency of consolidation proceedings, the land recorded in the name of Smt. Manno was assigned post consolidation Khasra numbers LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 3/11 and IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal taking advantage of this fact was successful in creating third party interest by way of execution of sale deed in contravention of order dated 19.09.1988 and a contempt petition was filed against him. It is stated that IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is only entitled for the entire compensation of the acquired land bearing Khasra no. 20/9/1/1/ (1-2) as the possession was taken from IP No. 2, who was in exclusive possession. It is stated that IP No. 1 Sh.Suraj Mal had left the village Mundka way back and settled in village Sultanpur @ Nuna Majra, Tehsil Bahadurgarh along with his mother Smt. Bhagwani.
8. A detailed reply filed on behalf of IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal. Preliminary submissions made that land in question belonged to one Sh. Ran Singh, common ancestor, who had five sons, namely, Mir Singh, Narain Singh, Surat Singh, Chottu and Bharte. Three legal heirs have died issueless. Initially Smt. Manno married to Sh. Narain Singh and after his death, she married to Sh.Bharte, who was already married. Sh. Bharte had two wives Smt. Manno and Smt. Bhagwani. IP No.2 is the son of Sh. Mir Singh and second wife Smt. Manno whereas IP No. 1 is the son of Sh. Mir Singh and first wife Smt. Bhagwani.
9. It is stated that in view of Delhi Land Reforms Act, late Sh. Bharte was survived by two widows, namely, Smt.Nanhi and Smt. Manno, who inherited share of Sh. Bharte after his death and consequently, declared Bhumidhar of 1/3rd share to the extent of 1/6th share in each joint holding after the death of Sh. Bharte. Smt. Manno had remarried Sh.Mir Singh and son i.e. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir was born out of the said wedlock.
LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 4/11
10. It is stated that in the year 1974-75, consolidation proceedings were initiated at village Mundka and in the scheme Smt. Manno was allotted land during partition and consolidation. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir moved an application before the Consolidation authorities claiming to be the sole legal heir of late Smt. Manno and brought Smt. Brahmo daughter of Smt. Manno and Sh. Bharte for making the statement. She made the statement to relinquish her share in favour of IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir. However, Ld. Consolidation Officer turned down her request and mutated the land in favour of IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir and IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal having half share each vide order dated 19.12.1979. Thereafter, Smt. Brahmo and IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir had filed a revision petition before F.C. but same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.1987. Thereafter, IP No. 2 filed civil suit for declaration that the order dated 19.12.1979 be declared as null and void. The suit has been still pending and restraint order was also passed on 19.09.1988. It is stated that IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal had executed a sale deed in favour of Sh. Dina Nath in respect of Khsara Nos. 51/3/3, 51/4/13 and 5/10/2, 5/6/6/1 total measuring 4 Bighas 13 Biswas and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of Sh. Dina Nath.
11. It is stated that Khasra no. 29/9/1/1 (1-2) was acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme vide award no. 3/DCW/98-99 and IP No.1 is only person who is entitled to receive compensation.
12. IP No. 1 taken preliminary objections that only IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal is entitled to receive the entire LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 5/11 compensation of Khasra No. 29/9/1/1 (1-2) out of total land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Biswas. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir never challenged the order dated 19.12.1979 before appropriate court and now the order has become final. IP No.2 has become greedy and bad eye on the compensation amount. The civil suit filed by IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir is not maintainable as the acquisition proceedings had taken place. It is stated that as per law of inheritance under Delhi Land Reforms Act as per Section 52 and 53, Smt. Brahmo had no right upon the land in question. IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal is legally entitled to sell the land to Sh. Dina Nath. It is further stated that IP No.1 is the recorded owner and in peaceful possession of the land in question and possession had been taken over from him by the government. It is further stated that during the consolidation proceedings Smt. Manno had Khata No. 261 whereas IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal was having Khata no. 264 and the land in question acquired from Khata no. 264. Therefore, he is entitled for entire compensation.
13. On merits, all the averments made by IP No. 2Sh. Sukhbir in his claim are denied and the facts mentioned in the preliminary submissions and preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal was the recorded owner and in peaceful possession of the land in question at the relevant time of taking over the possession of the land by the government. Therefore, IP No.1 is entitled for entire compensation.
14. In addition to it, a counter claim is also filed by IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal reiterating the averments made in the reply.
LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 6/11
15. From the pleadings of the parties, my Ld.Predecessor vide order dated 09.04.2009 framed the following issues:
(1). Which of IP is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent?
(2). Relief.
16. During the proceedings, IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal died on 15.09.2015 and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved. The said application was allowed vide order dated 09.03.2016 and the only LR Ms. Santosh of Sh.Suraj Mal was impleaded.
17. IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal got himself examined as IP1W1 and Sh. Karan Singh, Kanoongo as IP1W2. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of IP No. 1 was closed vide order dated 06.05.2016.
18. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir got himself examined as IP3W1 and thereafter, evidence was closed vide court order dated 16.01.2010.
19. I have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh by Ld. Counsel Sh.Sunil Chaudhary and also gone through the written submissions in rebuttal by Sh.Aakash Parashar, Ld. Counsel for the LRs of IP no.1. My findings on issue are as under:
LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 7/11 ISSUE NO. 1
20. As per record of this court and of revenue record produced by the parties during the proceedings, it is admitted on record that IP No.1 decesed Sh. Suraj Mal and IP No.2 Sh.Sukhbir Singh are sons of common father late Sh.Mir Singh but born out of different mothers. Both are step brothers. It is further admitted on record that consolidation proceedings of village Mundka were initiated in the year 1975-76. The consolidation authorities mutated the land in question of deceased Mir Singh on 19.12.1979 in the name of both Sh.Suraj Mal and Sh.Sukhbir Singh. It is further admitted on record that IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh challenged the mutation and proceedings of Consolidation Officer before Ld. Financial Commissioner. Ld. Financial Commissioner dismissed the petition vide order dated 14.07.1987. Thereafter, IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh filed a civil suit. The civil suit was also dismissed. The IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh now again challenged the mutation order whereby both become the co- sharerers of the land of deceased father Sh. Mir Singh. Although, mutation order dated 19.12.1979 has attained the finality. It is pertinent to mention here that in the connected case No. 16A/10/07, Union of India vs. Dina Nath & Others, an affidavit of IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh dated 01.12.1978 proved on record, wherein he admitted that IP No.1 and IP No. 2 are the only legal heirs and both the brothers are entitled to the land of deceased Mir Singh.
21. In this background, let us examine the testimony of IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, who appeared in the witness box and proved affidavit as Ex. IP3W1/A. In the cross-
LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 8/11 examination, he admitted that at the time of mutation of the land after the death of father Sh.Mir Singh, he and Sh.Suraj Mal were only the male legal heirs. He admitted that on 17.12.1979 when mutation order was passed, both were the male LRs of deceased Sh. Mir Singh. He admitted the filing of appeal before Ld. Financial Commissioner and same was dismissed. However, he denied that IP No.1 Sh.Suraj Mal was in possession of the land in question here in Khasra No. 20/9/1/1 on 21.03.2003 and 27.01.2006.
22. IP No. 1 deceased Sh. Suraj Mal also appeared in witness box and proved affidavit Ex. IPW1/A and Khasra Girdawari pertaining to year 1998 to 2006 Ex. IP1W1/1 to IP1W1/8. All these Khasra Girdawari mentioned the name of Sh.Suraj Mal.
23. In the cross-examination, he admitted that IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is the son of Smt. Manno Devi and he is the son of Smt. Bhagwani Devi. He explained that the mutation order was sanctioned from the name of late Sh.Mir Singh. He denied the knowledge of any civil suit filed by IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh against him. He deposed that he has not inherited any land belonging to deceased Smt. Manno Devi. He denied that IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh has filed a civil suit against him wherein stay was granted and he sold the land to a person residing at Punjabi Bagh.
24. IP No. 1 deceased Sh. Suraj Mal also examined IP1W2 Sh. Karan Singh, Kanoongo, who proved the Register Karwai of Consolidation of village Mundka Ex. IP1W2/1, which reflects the name of Sh. Suraj Mal in the proceedings as Mal LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 9/11 Haqdar No. 264 of land bearing Khasra no. 20//9/1 (0-15). The testimony of IP1 deceased Sh. Suraj Mal and the witness IP1W2 Sh. Karan Singh, Kanoongo establish that the acquried land in question as per revenue record after consolidation proceedings remained with the deceased IP No. 1 Sh. Suraj Mal. Khasra Girdawari Ex. IP1W1/1 to IP1W1/8 continuously from 1998 to 2006 further corroborate this fact. On the other hand, IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh failed to prove any revenue record which shows that he at any point of time shown as relation, title, interest in the acquired land. IP No.2 Sh.Sukhbir Singh challenged the consolidation mutation order and taken all legal recourse but the mutation order dated 17.12.1979 has attained finality. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, the issue is decided in favour of IP no.1 deceased Sh.Suraj Mal and against IP No.2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
25. In view of my observation and discussion on issue no. 1, it is held that the LRs of deceased IP No.1 Sh. Suraj Mal are entitled to the compensation of in respect of Sl No.365 as per Naksha Muntzamin in Khasra No. 20//9/1/1 (1-2) A, in the revenue estate of Mundka, Delhi. IP No. 2 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is not entitled to any compensation amount.
26. The reference is answered accordingly.
27. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 10/11
28. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 8th October, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 08.10.2016 LAC No. 17A/10/08 (New No.121/16) Union of India vs. Suraj Mal & Anr. 11/11