Delhi District Court
Lac No. 10A/10/07 Union Of India vs . Harish Virmani & Ors. 1/171 on 14 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 10A/10/07
New No. 3/16
Union of India
versus
1. Sh. Harish Virmani S/o Late Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani
2. Smt. Poonam Virmani W/o Sh. Harish Virmani
3. M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Company
through its Partners
Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena and
Smt. Shashi Saxena
4. M/s. Hind Electronic Industries
Through its partner
Sh. Harish Dewan
5. M/s. Surisons Industries
through its L.R.
Smt.Sapna Suri W/o late Sh. Atul Suri,
Miss Mehar Suri D/o Late Sh. Atul Suri
Smt. Pooja Manchanda W/o Sh. Rajat Manchanda
6. Shri Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh
7. M/s Cecon Engineers
Through its Prop. Shri. Mahinder Nayyar
8. M/s. Bright Sharpening
Through its Prop. Shri Devinder Sharma
9. Smt. Laxmi Devi
deceased through Ms. Madhu Sharma
10. M/s. Bhawana Sales Corporation
Through its partner Smt. Seema Duggal
11. M/s. Nitisha Enterprises
through its prop. Smt. Nirmal Rathore
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 1/171
12. M/s. Goel Bros.
Through its Prop. Shri Chander Mohan Goel
13. M/s. Asha Deep Industries
through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua
14. M/s. Mec Engineering Corporation
through its partner Sh. Bhupinder Singh,
Smt. Sunita Goel
15. M/s. Thomson & Thomson,
through its Prop. Sh. P.G. Thomas
16. M/s. Ahuja Stationers & Supplier
through its Prop. Smt. Neelam Ahuja
17. M/s. Garg Son Auto Plast,
through its Prop. Shri Arun Kumar Garg
18. M/s. Amrik Engineering Works,
through its Prop. Sh. Amrik Singh
19. Smt. Divya Jain
W/o Sh. Prashant Jain
20. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Sh. Rajinder Devgon,
Smt. Shashti Sahajpal W/o Sh. R.K. Sahajpal
Partners of M/s. Edison Elect.
21. M/s. Ramesh Automobiles
through its L.R. Smt. Thakri Devi,
Sh. Sonu Kumar & Ms. Poonam
22. M/s. ASVK Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Direcotor Sh. Kamal Vohra
23. M/s. Divya Automats
through its proprietor Smt. Usha Mehta
24. M/s. A. Kay Industries (INDIA),
through its proprietor Sh. Ashok Kumar Narang
25. M/s. Paul Welding Works,
through its proprietor Mrs. Jolly Paul
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 2/171
26. M/s. Bomaby Madras Good Carriers,
through its proprietor Sh. Narender Doomra.
27. M/s. Mono Industries
through its proprietor Smt. Mohini Rastogi
28. M/s. S.K. Metal & Wires,
through its Prop. Sh. Sandeep Sharma
29. Smt. Parmila Devi W/o Late Sh. Gama Maurya
30. M/s. Malhotra Motors
through its Prop. Sh. Harbans Lal
31. M/s. Agro Heat Engineers
through its Prop. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal
32. M/s. Nisha Cables
through its Prop. Sh. C.M. Kohli
33. M/s. Premier Rubber Industries
through its partner
Sh. Chander Makkar and Sh. Ajay Makkar
34. M/s. Popular Rubber Industries
through its partner Sh. Kasturi Lal Makkar
35. M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries
through its L.R.
Smt. Sapna Suri W/o Late Sh. Atul Suri,
Miss Mehar Suri D/o Late Sh. Atul Suri, &
Smt. Pooja Manchanda W/o Sh. Rajat Manchanda
36. M/s. Dhanarjan Industries
through its Prop. Kunwar Lal Sharma
37. M/s. Bachan Pan Bhandar
through its Prop. Sh. Ram Bachan
38. M/s. Space Conditioning Corporation,
through its Prop. Sh. K.C. Anand
39. M/s. Surisons Enterprises,
Prop. Smt. Santosh Suri
W/o Late M.L. Suri through its
Special Attorney Mr. Sanjesh Suri S/o Late M.L Suri
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 3/171
40. M/s. Pankaj Tea Stall
Through its Prop. Sh. Amit Kumar
41. M/s. Shri Ram Engineering Works,
Through its Prop. Sh. Gurmeet Singh
42. M/s. Space Design,
through its Prop. Smt. Divya Jain
43. M/s. Veekay Industries
Through its Prop. Sh. Kamal Vohra
44. M/s. Asha Deep Industries
Through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua
45. M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries
Through its partner
Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal
S/o late S.D. Sabharwal
46. M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
Sh. Harish Virmani and
Smt. Poonam Virmani
.....Interested Parties
Award No. : 02/DCW/2006-2007
Village : 69/1A to 69/6A at Patel Road,
67, 68/1-3, 70, Najafgarh Road
Date of Award : 30.08.2006
Date of institution of the case : 10.09.2007
Date of reserving of judgment : 29.11.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.12.2017
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) referred reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect to Award no. 02/DCW/2006-2007, Village 69/1A to 69/6A at Patel Road, 67, 68/1-3, 70, Najafgarh Road LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 4/171 as per enclosed Naksha Muntzamim along with compensation of Rs.7,09,96,957/-. The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons.
3. As per order dated 10.09.2007, the cheque No. 845596 of Rs.7,09,96,957/- was directed to be deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari Court in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal after six months.
4. IP Nos. 1 & 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 & 44, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45 and 46 have filed their statement of claims. The remaining referred IPs failed to file any statement of claim.
5. IP Nos. 1 & 2 stated in their statement of claim that Late Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani, father of the respondent had purchased freehold plot measuring 12.41 Acres in plot no. 69, Industrial Area Scheme, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi through Registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.1950 between Rai Bahadur Gujjar Mal Modi and Seth Jiwan Lal Virmani read with Sale deed dated 17.10.1969, Delhi Development authority and Shri Jiwan Lal Virmani. It is further stated that Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani died on 03.11.1989 and left behind a Will dated 01.08.1983 under which his three sons Sh. Ashok Virmai, Sh.Harish Virmani (claimant) and Sh. Kapil Virmani became absolute owners of the land in property no. 69, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. It is further stated that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 5/171 the plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi was divided in six parts i.e. 69/1-A, 69/2-A, 69/3-A, 69/4-A, 69/5-A and 69/6-A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015. It is further stated that 1/3rd share of Sh. Ashok Virmani devolved upon him by virtue of aforesaid Will dated 01.08.1983, was purchased by Sh. Harish Virmani vide sale documents on 26.03.1992 and as such he became a person interested in the acquired land to the extent of 2/3rd share and entitled to receive the amount of compensation to that extent. It is further stated that as per Lease executed between the owners Sh. Harish Virmani & Smt. Poonam Virmani on one hand and M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. on the other hand in respect of property no. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Delhi , it was agreed that in the event of acquisition, compensation was agred to be payable to the owners/applicant i.e. Sh. Harish Virmani & Smt. Poonam Virmani. It is further stated that the LAC had acquired and taken possession of land measuring 2222.25 sq. meters and has sent compensation for land measuring 2083.37 sq. meters as per Naksha Muntzamin.
6. IP No. 3 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area, out of which an area measuring 720 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor and 336 sq. ft. on the First Floor has been acquired. The claimant has been running the business of manufacturing of PVC compound and allied products. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and was having a major interest in the land as he was earning his livelihood from the income derived from his manufacturing unit. It is further LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 6/171 stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 3 stated that the above named claimant is neither an interest person nor entitled for any compensation either in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 never had any privity of contract with the above claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is stated that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
7. IP No. 4 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area measuring 177 sq. yards, out of which an area of 84 sq. yards has been acquired leaving an area of 93 sq. yards. The claimant has LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 7/171 been running the business of manufacturing auto parts since 1964 and the claimant has installed 13 heavy machines like lathes, drill machines, milling hydraulic machines on strong and deep foundations. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and was having a major interest in the land as he was earning his livelihood from the income derived from his manufacturing unit. It is further stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 4 stated that the IP No. 4 has no right, title or interest in the land forming part of land/property 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 never had any privity of contract with the above claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. The contractual tenancy of IP No. 4 was terminated vide notice dated 28.12.2001 and suit for possession against the IP No. 4 is pending in the court of Sh. Rakesh Tiwari, ADJ, Delhi. It is further stated that the IP No. 1 is guilty of suppression of material facts. IP No. 4 has failed to disclose the termination of tenancy as well as filing of the suit. The IP No. 4 had also inducted sublettees illegally without the consent in writing of the landlord company/ IP No.46. On merits, all the averments made in the claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 8/171 already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
8. IP No. 5 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of built up commercial freehold area of 600 sq. yards, out of which an area of 575 sq. yards has been acquired along with the structures. The claimant was having electric power and telephone connections and have been running industry with the prior permission and sanction from the statutory authorities and the claimant was assessed to property tax by the MCD. It is further stated that the claimant has given on rent land measuring 1800 sq. ft. to M/s. Mono Industries and land measuring 66 sq. yards to M/s. Nitisha Industries and land measuring 136.5 sq. yards to M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries with the consent of the landlord and was getting rent therefrom. It is further stated that the claimant was protected against eviction from various statutes including the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is further stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector from the claimant. The claimant is still in possession of 25 sq. yards which is remained unacquired. It is further stated that the claimant has been running the industrial unit under the license granted by the MCD and LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 9/171 permissions from other statutory authorities. The claimant is entitled to a major amount of compensation as it is his major interest of livelihood which has been acquired. It is further stated that the claimant is entitled to 87 % of compensation.
9. IP No. 6 in his statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold property measuring 8' x 11' and has been trading in welding material in the said proeprty. The claimant was having electric and telephone connection in his own name. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and was having a major interest in the land as he was earning his livelihood from the income derived from his manufacturing unit. It is further stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 6 stated that the above named claimant is neither an interest person nor entitled for any compensation either in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 never had any privity of contract with the IP No.6 in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the suit filed by M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 10/171 above named claimant and Mrs. Sheela Dewan was decreed by the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 and it was held that "Plaintiff is entitled to decree against the defenadnts for possession of property admeasuring 41 sq. yards (33'.7"x11'.0") being part of property No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The said judgment and decree has attained finality and the claimant is left with no right, title or interest in respect of the above mentioned land and construction thereon. IP No. 46 has denied all the averments made in the claim filed by IP No. 6. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
10. IP No. 7 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of area measuring 13' x 20' on the ground floor and the same are on the first floor in the property bearing No. 69/6A, Patel Road, New Delhi. The claimant was carrying on the business of air- conditioning and Refrigeration and was also having workshop in the said property. It is further stated that the claimant was having commercial electric connection and telephone connection and was also registered with the other statutory Authorities. It is further stated that the possession of the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 11/171 acquired property was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant is entitled to major percentage of apportionment in his favour and claims 87% of the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 7 and 31 stated that the above named claimants are guilty of suppression of material facts. It is stated that IP Nos. 7 and 31 are sub-lettees of late Sh. Inder Sain, who was a tenant of IP No. 46 in respect of area measuring 12' x 10" x 20' x 4". It is further stated that an eviction suit was filed by IP No. 46 against the LRs of late Sh. Inder Sain and in the said suit claimants were impleaded as parties. The said suit was decreed on 14.03.2005 by Ld. Civil Judge and the appeal filed against the said order by the claimant was dismissed by Ld. ADJ on 15.02.2006. After that the claimants have not filed any second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and in this way the order of Ld. Civil Judge dated 14.03.2005 has become final. In view of the legal position, the claimants are left with no right, title or interest in the subject matter of the property. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim have been denied by the IP No. 46. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 12/171
11. IP No. 8 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of a portion of built up commercial property measuring 10' x 10' and has been running his shop-cum-workshop of manufacturing cutting tools and job work in the name and style of M/s. Bright Sharpening in the property since 1980 and the whole of the property has been acquired. It is further stated that the claimant was having a telephone connection and was assessed to Income Tax. It is further stated that claimant is equivalent to that of occupancy tenant and is entitled to major share in the compensation. The claimant has no other alternative place nor any alternative place has been allotted till date.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 8 stated that the IP No. 8 is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that there is no privity of contract in respect of any part of land or construction between the claimants and the objectors. It is further stated that the claimant has failed to rely upon any admissible document in support of its claim. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim have been denied by the IP No. 46. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 13/171 title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
12. IP No. 9 in her statement of claim stated that the husband of the claimant Sh. Radha Pati S/o Sh. Sis Ram was a tenant in respect of commercial place measuring 24' x 20' wherein the claimant was running business of Tea Stall, Cold drinks. The electric connection was also in the name of the husband of the claimant. It is further stated that Sh. Radha Pati was paying rent @ Rs.40/- per month during his lifetime and thereafter the claimant has been paying rent to the landlord/owner. The claimant was also residing in the same place. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and is entitled to major share in the apportionment of compensation. It is further stated that the claimant's status is analogous to that of an occupancy tenant as there was no ground available with the owner/landlord to evict the claimant. The claimant is entitled to 97% of the compensation assessed for the land.
IP No. 46 in its objection to the claim of the IP No. 9 stated that Smt. Laxmi Devi widow of late Shri Radha Pati had filed the statement of claim before this court which claim is numbered as IP No. 9. It is stated that Smt. Laxmi Devi expired on 05.03.2008 during the proceedings of the case. After her death, Madhu Sharma, the alleged daughter of late Shri Radha Pati and Smt. Laxmi Devi had moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for her impeadment to the estate of her mother, namley, Smt. Laxmi Devi on the basis of Will, which will is forged document as life interest LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 14/171 holder cannot make a Will. It is stated that the claimant has no right, title or interest in the subject matter of the acquisition on the grounds that Sh. Radha Pati was a tenant and the tenancy agreement was only for 11 months and on that account no registration was required under the law. It is further stated that Sh. Radha Pati had further agreed that after his death, his eife could live till she is alive and after der death, none of the legal representative of late Sh. Radha Pati could succeed to any tenancy rights. It is further stated that Sh. Radha Pati while executing the rent agreement had clearly agreed that in case of any acquisition proceeding, he would be left with no claim whatsoever for the land as well as for the structures leased out to him. It is further stated that statement of claim is based on concoction. The area let out was 40 sq. yards as per agreement. However, the statement of claim speaks that the area let out was 80 sq. yards. On merits, it is admitted that Shri Radha Pati who was the husband of Late Smt. Laxmi Devi was originally a tenant in respect of covered space measuring 40 sq. yards. Rest of the averments made in the statement of claim were denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 15/171
13. IP No. 10 in its statement of claim stated that he is a person interested as a tenant and has been in possession of a shop situated at Patel Road in an approved industrial cum commercial arera and has been doing its trading business of polythene bags and its allied products under the name and style of M/s. Bhawna Sales Corporation in the said property. It is further stated that the claimant was having telephone connection as well as was registered wit the Sales Tax and has been paying Income Tax in the same premises. The claimant is protected for his eviction by various statues and possession of the property was taken over by the LAC from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business again. The status of the claimant is equivalent to that of occupancy tenant and is entitled to major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 10 stated that the above named claimant is not entitled for any compensation either in respect of land and/or construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has had no privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that IP No. 46 filed a suit against the claimant and Mr. Gulshan Rai Makkar and the same was decreed by Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 30.11.2004. It is further stated that as per terms and conditions of Lease Deed/ Rent Note dated 03.05.1975 executed between IP No. 46 and Gulshan Rai Makkar, it was agreed that in case open space/land measuring 44.5 sq. yards is acquired by the Governemtn, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 16/171 compensation for the same along with structure, if any, will be payable to the lessor/owners and the lessee will have no claim to the same. It is further stated that after passing the decree for recovery of possession and mesne profit dated 30.11.2004 against the claimant and Mr. Gulshan Rai Makkar, they have no right to claim any compensation. Rest of the averments made in the statement of claim were denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
14. There is no statement of claim filed by IP No. 12 in this case. However, Objections filed by IP No. 46 to the effect that the Objector/IP no. 46 has not received any statement of claim on behalf of M/s. Goel Brothers, IP No. 12 and due to this reason, no objections were filed by the Objector. The present rejoinder if treated as objections in that event IP No. 46 have objections to the effect that the Objector has no privity of contract with IP No. 12 M/s. Goel Brothers. M/s. Goel Brothers have been an illegal sub-lettee of Deepak Devgan of M/s. Deepak Industries and against them a decree of eviction was passed by the court of Sh. Gautam Manon, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi vide order dated 07.09.2005 and as such the IP No. 12 is not entitled to claim LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 17/171 any compensation. On merits, the averments are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
15. IP No. 13 and 44 in their statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of the acquired property measuring 13 ¼' x 28' on Ground Floor and 9' x 8' on the First floor besides a shop measuring 13' x 11' and an office measuring 9' x 8' on the First Floor. It is further stated that the claimant is in possession of the premises since 1977. The claimant got himself registered with Sales Tax Department and also got his licence to run a factory from the MCD. The electric and power connections were also got installed in the name of the claimant and the claimant was also registered as Small Scale Industry. It is further stated that the claimant remained in possession till the date of its acquisition. The claimant was protected from his eviction. It is further stated that no case was filed or any notice was given to the claimant for evicting the claimant from the premises. It is further stated that it is the claimant who has suffered loss by acquisition and is therefore entitled major share in the compensable to the tune of 87% of the compensation.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 18/171 IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP Nos. 13 & 44 stated that they are not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. There is no privity of contract in respect of any part of land or construction between the claimants and the objectors. The claimant has failed to rely upon any admissible document in support of its claim. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim were denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
16. IP No. 14 in its statement of claim stated that the claimants are the persons interested as owner and in possession of commercial built up property measuring 14.1/4' x 21' along with open space which was given on perpetual lease dated 01.12.1982 by Sh. Jiwan Dass Virmani as Director of M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. To Sh. K.K. Vohra S/o Sh. J.N. Vohra with the rights that the lessors has no right, interest in the said property during the period of 99 years. Out of the said property an area of 14.1/4' x 19' has been acquired. As per claimant, it was also agreed that in case the property is acquired, the entire amount of compensation be paid to LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 19/171 lessee Sh. K.K. Vohra. Sh. K.k. Vohra transferred all his rights to Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. S.P. Duggal vide agreement dated 01.03.1991 and transferred all his rights which were bewtowed upon him by Sh. Jiwan Dass Virmani to Sh. Ajay Kumar. Sh. Ajay Kumar in turn vide agreement dated 10.06.2000 transferred all his rights in favour of M/s. Mec Engineering Corporation including the right to receive the compensation. It is further stated that the possession of the said property remained with the claimants till the LAC took over the possession of the same. It is stated that no person other than the claimants have any right, title or interest whatsoever to receive the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP Nos. 14 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that claimant has not relied on any admissible document that Mec Engineering is the owner and in possession of built up property measuring 14 ¼ ' x 21'. The claimant has failed to disclose the open space as it has simply stated that it is in possession of built up property 14 ¼ ' x 21' alongwith open space. It is further stated that the claimant has failed to rely on any admissible document in support of the claim that Sh. K.K. Vohra was lessee of IP No. 46 and further failed to file a copy of alleged agreement dated 01.03.1991 and whether the agreement was duly registered between Sh. K.K. Vohra and Ajay Kumar. The claimant has failed to file copy of alleged agreement. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 20/171 which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
17. IP No. 15 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area, out of which an area measuring 152.75 sq. mtr. The claimant has been running the business of grinding wheels, V-belts, rubber polishing material etc. The claimant was having electric and telephone connection. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and was having a major interest in the land as he was earning his livelihood from the income derived from his shop. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP Nos. 15 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 21/171 contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the suit filed by IP no. 46 against the claimant and Smt. Kiran Malhotra was decreed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2006. The said judgment and decree dated 18.05.2006 has attained finality and in view of the legal position mentioned above, the claimant is left with no right, title or interest in respect of above mentioned land and construction thereon. It is further stated that as per terms and conditions of Lease Deed/ Rent Note dated 03.05.1975 executed between M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Smt. Kiran Malhotra, it was agreed that in case open space/land admeasuring 45.20 sq. yards is acquired by the Government, compensation for the same along with structure, if any, will be payable to the lessor/owners and the lessee will have no claim to the same. It is further stated that the tenancy of Smt. Kiran Malhotra was terminated by afflux of time as Lease Deed/ Rent Note was for limited period, moreover, same stands terminated vide legal notice dated 02.02.1993 and thereafter decree for possession and mesne profit has been passed by the court of competent jurisdiction on 18.05.2006. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 22/171
18. IP No. 16 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested as a lessee of shop-cum- office measuring 155.68 sq. ft., situated on the Patel Road and has been running the business under the name and style of M/s. Ahuja Stationers and Suppliers in the said property. It is further stated that the claimant has been paying rent regularly to the landlord/owner and is protected under various statues including Delhi Rent Control Act from eviction. The tenancy of the claimant has now been terminated, the claimant is entitled to major share in the compensation which has been assessed for the land and structures. It is further stated that the claimant is entitled to major amount of compensation as she was paying the nominal rent for a long time and there were not grounds available with the landlord for the eviction of the claimant. The position of the claimant is equal to that of a occupancy tenant and the LAC as well as the Land Acquisition Courts have been apportioning the compensation at the rate of 87 % in favour of the tenant.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 16 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the suit filed by IP no. 46 against the claimant and Smt. Kiran Malhotra was decreed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2006. The said judgment and decree dated 18.05.2006 has attained finality and in view of the legal position mentioned above, the claimant is left with no right, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 23/171 title or interest in respect of above mentioned land and construction thereon. It is further stated that as per terms and conditions of Lease Deed/ Rent Note dated 03.05.1975 executed between M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Smt. Kiran Malhotra, it was agreed that in case open space/land admeasuring 45.20 sq. yards is acquired by the Government, compensation for the same along with structure, if any, will be payable to the lessor/owners and the lessee will have no claim to the same. It is further stated that the tenancy of Smt. Kiran Malhotra was terminated by afflux of time as Lease Deed/ Rent Note was for limited period, moreover, same stands terminated vide legal notice dated 02.02.1993 and thereafter decree for possession and mesne profit has been passed by the court of competent jurisdiction on 18.05.2006. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
19. IP No. 17 in its statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area, out of which an area measuring 9.5' x 36.5' and 4.5' x 10' has been acquired besides an area of 11.5' x 19.5' which is outside the area acquired. The claimant has been running a LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 24/171 manufacturing unit and office in the name ans style of Garg Autoplast. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and various other statues and was having a major interest in the land as he was earning his livelihood from the income derived from manufacturing unit. It is further stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the LAC from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 17 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 25/171
20. IP No. 18 in its statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area, out of which an area measuring 12' x 15.50' and has been carrying his business of manufacturing, sale and repairing of machineries in the name and style of M/s. Amrik Engineering Works in the aforesaid property from the year 1976. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from various statues. The possession of the acquired property was taken over by LAC from the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant has no other alternative place nor any other alternative place has been allotted till date for starting his business once again. The status of the claimant is equal to that of an occupancy tenant and is entitled to a major share in the compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 18 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the suit filed by IP no. 46 against the claimant and Smt. Sheela Dewan was decreed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006. The said judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 has attained finality and in view of the legal position mentioned above, the claimant is left with no right, title or interest in respect of above mentioned land and construction thereon. It is further stated that the tenancy of Smt. Sheela Dewan was terminated by afflux of time as Lease LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 26/171 Deed/ Rent Note was for limited period, moreover, same stands terminated vide legal notice dated 14.04.1997 and thereafter decree for possession and mesne profit has been passed by the court of competent jurisdiction on 30.11.2006. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
21. IP No. 19 in her statement of claim stated that the claimant was owner and in possession of part of property bearing No. 69/6-A, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Patel Road, New Delhi. She had purchased the same from Shri Harish Virmani and Smt. Poonam Virmani vide a registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1999 admeasuring 16.37' x 12.25' i.e. 22.29 sq. yards but has not been paid the compensation of the proportionate share/rights of the common passage. It is further stated that the claimant claims full share that as per her holding of the land, the owner was not in possession of any part of the common passage. The common passage was either used by the claimant, who purchased the land by the Lease Holder.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 19 stated that claimant is not entitled to any LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 27/171 compensation in respect of passage, if any. It is stated that the claimant has wrongly claimed that she was the owner of ground floor measuring 16.37' x 12.25' i.e. 22.29 sq. yds. alongwith common passage. It is further stated that as per Sale deed dated 03.08.2001, IP No.1, IP No. 2 and IP No. 46 had sold ground floor measuring 14.875' 11.25' i.e. 18.60 sq. yds. Of ground floor only to Smt. Divya Jain and not land measuring 16.375' x 12.25' i.e. 22.29 sq. yds. The claimant has shown the area of the other purchaser i.e. Divya Automats. In this connection plan attached with Sale deed is referred. It is further stated that IP No.1, IP No.2 and IP No. 46 have never sold any passage/land to the claimant. The claimant has not specified area of the passage, if any, in the claim. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
22. IP No. 20 in her statement of claim stated that the claimants are personally interested as tenants of commercial built up cum industrial built up property measuring 19' x 23' on the ground floor and 19' x 23' on the First floor besides 26' x 30' on the ground floor and 26' x 30' on the first floor, which have been acquired leaving behind a part of the property which is unacquired and is in possession LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 28/171 of the claimants. It is further stated that the claimants are old tenants from the year 1960 onwards and are protected under various statues including the Delhi Rent Control Act against eviction. The claimants have electric and telephone connections in their name. It is further stated that the status of the claimants was equivalent to that of an occupancy tenant. The claimant is entitled to receive 87% compensation out of the total compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 20 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that after termination of the tenancies of the M/s. Edison Electricals vide legal notices dated 05.07.1996 and 05.05.1999 in respect of two portions of land, which were created vide lease deeds dated 01.12.1973 and 01.12.1977, two suits for recovery of possession and arrears of rent/damages was filed by M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd./IP No. 46, one against the Edison Electricals and another against the Edison Electricals and its sub-tenants, which are pending in the court of Ld. Civil Judge and likely to be decreed in favour of the objector as right of cross examine the witnesses of the objector by the Edison Electricals and right to lead evidence by the Edison Electricals has already been closed. It is further stated that after termination of the tenancies, the claimants have become unauthorized occupant in both portions of the land which is subject matter of the present proceedings and in view of the legal position mentioned above, the claimant left with no right, title or interest in respect of the subject land. On merits, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 29/171 the averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
23. IP No. 21 in his statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold area, out of which an area measuring 7'-5" and 10 feet and has been running the business of scooters, motor cycles, cards besides sale and purchase of scooters, motor-cycles and cars for the last more than 12 years from the date of taking over possession of the land by the LAC from the claimant. The claimant was running the business after obtaining license from the MCD and also was having electric and power connection besides telephone connection in his own name. It is further stated that the status of the claimant was analogous to that of an occupant tenant, who has been held to receive 87% of the compensation, being having major interest in the acquired property. It is further stated that IP no.1 and two others claimed to be owners of the aforesaid property. The possession of the applicant was open. It is further stated that the claimant has acquired the rights of ownership on account of adverse possession.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 30/171 IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 21 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the suit filed by IP no. 46 against the claimant and Mr. Gulshan Rai was decreed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004. It is further stated that as per terms and conditions of Lease Deed/ Rent Note dated 03.05.1975 executed between M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Gulshan Rai Makkar, it was agreed that in case open space/land admeasuring 44.5 sq. yards is acquired by the Government, compensation for the same along with structure, if any, will be payable to the lessor/owners and the lessee will have no claim to the same. It is further stated that after passing the decree for recovery of possession and mesne profit dated 30.11.2004 against the above named claimant and Sh. Gulshan Rai Makkar, they have no right to claim any compensation. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 31/171
24. IP No. 22 in its statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold property as office measuring 8'.5" x 14' on the main Patel Road and has been running his chit fund and Finance business in the property prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from various statues and has status equivalent to an occupancy tenant. It is further stated that the claimant has been paying rent at nominal rate and there was not ground available to the land owner/landlord for initiating eviction proceedings against the claimant. The claimant has major interest in the property as he was earning his livelihood from himself and his family members from the business being conducted in the property acquired by the Government. The claimant has not been allotted any alternative accommodation to restart his business.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 22 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that the claimant has failed to rely on any admissible document that it is in possession of built up commercial-cum-industrial property measuring 8'5" x 14' on the main Patel Road. The claimant has failed to rely on any document in support of the claim that it is the tenant of M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd./IP No. 46 or IP No. 1 and IP No.2. It is further stated that the claimant has failed to rely on any admissible document i.e. Lease deed under which it was filed the claim of compensation. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 32/171 registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
25. IP No. 23 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant was owner and in possession of part of the premises in respect of which the amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC paid to the Proprietor Smt. Usha Mehta. It is further stated that Claimant Ms. Divya Auto Mats was also having its space measuring 29' x 11' as a tenant and was paying lease money to the landlord/ land owners in respect of part of the property bearing no. 69/6-A, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area, Patel Road, New Delhi. It is further stated that the claimant was enjoying its status equivalent to that of occupancy tenant. The claimant had been paying the lease money regularly to the land-owners/landlord and the tenancy of the claimant was never terminated nor there was any ground to terminate the tenancy of the claimant. It is further stated that the claimant is an old tenant from the year 1975 onwards and is entitled to major share in the compensation that may be assessed for the property acquired.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 23 stated that claimant is neither an interested person nor entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 33/171 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. On merits, it is stated that para no.1 is matter of record and remaining paras 2 to 4 and prayer clause are denied in toto. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
26. IP No. 24 in his statement of claim stated that claimant was a tenant of built-up property measuring 21' x 10½' , a part of the same has been acquired @ Rs.58/- per month. The claimant is a very old tenant and after acquisition an area of 9' x 10 ½' is still with the claimant. The area 12' x 10 ½' has been acquired along with structures vide the Award under Reference. It is further stated that the claimant is protected under various statutes from his eviction including Delhi Rent Control Act and is entitled to receive the compensation. Sh. Girish Varmani or any other person claiming as owner/landlord had very limited interest in the acquired property. It is stated that claimant is entitled for 87% of the compensation amount.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 34/171 IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 24 stated that claimant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts about the termination of contractual tenancy and pendency of the eviction petition against him. The claimant is having no right, title or interest in the subject matter of acquisition, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
27. IP No. 26 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and has been in possession of built up commercial property measuring 9' x 10' on the main Patel Road and has been running business of transportation of goods in the name and style of M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers in the said property. It is further stated that the claimant is a perpetual lessee for a period of 99 yeas in the name of Sh. H.B. Doomra, father of the claimant. Sh. H.B. Doomra died at Delhi on 23.02.2000 and after his death, the claimant has been inherited all rights, title and interest which were being enjoyed by his father. The claimant has been working along with his father during his lifetime and is LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 35/171 in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises after his death. The claimant is having electric, telephone connections and has been paying property tax direct to the concerned Authorities. The status of the claimant is equivalent to as an owner as he has major interest in the property and was given the right to alienate, transfer, mortgage, lease out the property. Parties seek that the claimant is entitled to full amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 26 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated that the claimant IP No. 26 has not relied upon any admissible document in support of its claim that it is in possession of built up commercial property measuring 9' x 10'. The claimant has failed to rely on any document to prove that the firm is a perpetual lessee. The claimant has himself admitted in para no.2 of the claim that the lease was in the name of Sh. H.B. Doomra. The claimant has not disclosed as to whether open space was constructed with or without the approval of the MCD. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 36/171 title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
28. IP No. 27 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and has been in lawful possession of the aforesaid property, ad-measuring 1800 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor and 500 sq. ft. on the First Floor, situated on Patel Road, an approved industrial-cum- commercial area and has been doing the manufacturing business of law-density polythene tube films, wide-width polythene mm/hob -polythene rolls, bags and tubes and allied products under the name and style of M/s Mono Industries. It is further stated that the claimant was having factory as well as office in the aforesaid property situated in the property No. 69/6A, Patel Road, Delhi, which was acquired. The possession of the acquired property was taken over by the LAC from the claimant. The possession of the claimant remained peaceful and undisturbed from the year 1969 till the date of acquisition. It is further stated that the claimant was registered as a Small Sale Industry with the Director of Industries, Delhi Administration, CPO Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The claimant was also having electric and power connection besides telephone connection. It is further stated that claimant has suffered maximum loss on account of the acquisition and is therefore entitled to receive major percentage of compensation as assessed by the LAC. The claimant is entitled to at least 87 % of the compensation assessed for the land and structures besides for loss of earnings etc. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 37/171
29. IP No. 28 in its statement of claim stated that the it has been in occupation/possession of industrial area measuring 448 sq. feet i.e. 51 sq. yards besides an area of 18' x 3' being used as store and passage. The claimant had been doing the business of manufacturing and trading business of wires and wire under the name and style of M/s. S.K. Metal Works in the said property. Out of the total area, the claimant is now left only with an area measuring 24' x 24 without any staircase. The remaining space has become useless for the time being and cannot be put to any use till the claimant is provided with staircase. The possession of the land was acquired by LAC from the claimant. The claimant is entitled to a major part of the compensation for the land and structures. The claimant was registered with Small Scale Industry and a industrial license was issued by the MCD from the year 1978 onwards. The claimant was also having telephone connection and power connection in its name. It is stated that claimant is entitled to 87% of the compensation amount.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 28 stated that claimant is neither an interested person nor entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. On merits, it is stated that contents of paras 1 to 7 and prayer clause are denied in toto. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 38/171 Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
30. IP No. 30 in its statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold property having shop cum office measuring 14' x 12' on the main Patel Road and has been running his business of sale and purchase of cars and vehicles much before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimant has electric and telephone connection in his own name. It is further stated that the claimant was protected from various statues and has status equivalent to an occupancy tenant. The claimant is entitled to a major part of the compensation that may be assessed for the property under the tenancy of the claimant as he was earning his livelihood for himself and his family members from the business being conducted in the property acquired by the Government. The claimant has not been allotted any alternative accommodation to restart his business once again.
31. IP No. 31 in its statement of claim stated that claimant is a person interested and in possession of commercial-cum-industrial built-up freehold property as office measuring 10' x 8" x 9' on the ground floor as showroom/sale office and 10'x8"x19' as workshop on the first floor and has been running business of manufacturing, sale and marketing LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 39/171 of control panels, ovens and other electric goods for heating purpose in the property since 1981. It is further stated that the claimant was protected for his eviction by various statues and possession of the property acquired was taken over by LAC from the claimant. The claimant has not been allotted any alternative accommodation to restart his business. The claimant was assessed to Income Tax, registered with Sales Tax and has been running business under the permission and license as well as SSI and was also having power connection. The status of the claimant is equivalent to that of occupancy tenant and is entitled to major share in the compensation.
32. IP No. 32 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and has been in possession of built up commercial cum freehold property measuring 30' x 40' and has been carrying on his business of trading of insulated cables, PVC cables etc. in the name and style of M/s. Naresh Cables from the year 1979, out of which a part of the property has been acquired i.e. about 30' x 20'. It is further stated that the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the LAC directly from the claimant. The claimant is protected from his eviction by various statues. The claimant has not been offered any alternative site nor any space has been allotted to him to start his business once again. It is further stated that the claimant is a tenant in respect of acquired property and is entitled to 87% of the amount of compensation assessed for land and structure.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 32 stated that claimant has no locus-standi to file the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 40/171 present claim. There exists no legal right in favour of claimant in respect of the built up area claimed to be in possession or occupation of the claimant or in respect of the area acquired by the Government. M/s. Nisha Cables is not having any independent or recognized right in respect of the property in question. It is further stated that vide letter dated 10.11.1979, M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, which is admittedly the tenant under the objectors, had specifically and in writing represented that M/s. Nisha Cables/IP No.32 was its sister concern. The sister concern is always subservient to the principal and has no independent right or claim. It is further stated that M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries has already agreed in writing that in the event of acquisition of tenanted property, it shall not be entitled to any compensation. When M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries is not entitled to any compensation as per written agreement between the landlord and tenant, then how the sister concern of such tenant can claim compensation. It is further stated that IP No. 46 has filed an eviction petition against M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries/IP No. 45 and M/s/ Nisha Cables & others which is pending adjudication. In that case the Objector has specifically claimed that M/s. Nisha Cables is an illegal and unauthorized sub tenant of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries. IP no. 32 has taken a stand of tenancy in respect of unspecified area. IP No. 32 was represented as a sister concern of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries and cannot claim independent tenancy either under law or otherwise. It is further stated that neither M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries nor a sister concern M/s. Nisha Cables /IP No.32 are entitled to any compensation. On merits, averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 41/171 Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
33. IP No. 34 in its statement of claim stated that claimants were persons in possession of land and structure measuring 73' x 50' on the ground floor as well as on the first floor and were running the business of manufacturing of footwear uppers and soles since 1968. The claimants were also having structures in the shape of tubewell with submersible pumps of 100' deep with steel pipes. It is further stated that the claimants were having 125 HP Electric Power connection in their name. It is further stated that no person other then the claimant IPs have any right, title or interest in the amount of compensation pertaining to the area which was under their occupation. It is further stated that the claimants were also owners and in possession of part of the building besides the area measuring 73'x50' which was on rent with the claimants consisting of ground as well as first floor. It is further stated that the claimant is a tenant in respect of acquired property and is entitled to 87% of the amount of compensation assessed for land and structure.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of M/s. Popular Rubber Industries/ IP No. 34 stated that claimant is neither an interested person nor entitled to any LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 42/171 compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is further stated that the claimant has not relied upon any document in support of its claim. The claimant has not stated in what capacity it was in possession of the acquired land. It is further stated that each and every claim of the claimant is denied and claimant is not entitled to the payment of any compensation. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
34. IP No. 35 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested as a lawful tenant in the portion of the property in three industrial sheds measuring 4 x 3.7 square meters, 13.5 x 4 square meters and 10.7 x 6.2 square meters, in all measuring 136.62 square meters and has been running the business of Rubber Procerssing on job work basis under the name ans style of M/s. Pooja Industries in the aforesaid property for the last 19 years from the date of taking over possession by the LAC. It is further stated that the claimant was having electricity and power connection and had been running industries with the prior permission and LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 43/171 sanction from the statutory authorities. It is further stated that the claimant has suffered huge loss on account of acquisition and taking over possession of property as no alternative accommodation/allotment has been allotted to the claimant till date. The petitioner was protected from eviction under various statutes including Delhi Land Control Act. The claimant is entitled to major part of compensation assessed from the land and structures.
35. IP No. 38 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant was a tenant in respect of built up portion of property bearing No. 69/6A, admeasuring 20' x 15' on the main Patel Road, besides a toilet measuring 25 sq. feet over and above the area of shop having commercial place/shop measuring 25' x 15'. It is further stated that the claimant is an old tenant since the year 1972 and has been regularly paying rent to the landlord. M/s. Jeewan Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition for eviction against the claimant and others in the Court of ARC, Delhi. Vide the orders of the Court, the name of the claimant was deleted from the array of the respondent as it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner in the said case to file a case for eviction against the claimant. It is further stated that electric, telephone connections in the property were acquired by the claimant. The status of the claimant was equivalent to that of an occupancy tenant. It is further stated that the claimant is a tenant in respect of acquired property and is entitled to 87% of the amount of compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of M/s. Space Conditioning Corporation/ IP No. 38 stated that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 44/171 claimant is neither an interested person nor entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
36. IP No. 39 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant is a person interested and in possession of the above built-up commercial-cum-industrial freehold property having an industrial unit and two shops on the main Patel Road. The claimant is a tenant in land measuring 235.03 sq. meter on the ground floor and 62.95 sq. meters on the first floor, taken on rent from M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries with the consent of the land owner M/s. Jeewan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vide letter dated 12.11.1979, out of which land measuring 175.045 sq. meters on ground floor and 41.75 sq. meters has been acquired. The area of rent of the land is in possession of the claimant. The claimant has been running its business of rubber processing on job work basis under the name and style of M/s. Surisons Enterprises in this property for the last LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 45/171 25 years. The claimant is having electric power sanction load of 80.8 KW, valid Corporation license no. 402806 dated 12.04.2004 for 1000 HP to run a factory and telephone connection no. 25432205. The claimant is also registered with the Employees Provident Fund, State Insurance Corporation etc. The claimant is protected under various statutes from his eviction. The possession of the portion acquired of the property has also been taken over from the claimant. The claimant is entitled to a major portion of the compensation. It is further stated that the claimant is entitled to 87% of the amount of compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 39 stated that claimant has no locus-standi to file the present claim. There exists no legal right in favour of claimant in respect of the built up area claimed to be in possession or occupation of the claimant or in respect of the area acquired by the Government. M/s. Surisons Enterprises is not having any independent or recognized right in respect of the property in question. It is further stated that vide letter dated 10.11.1979, M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, which is admittedly the tenant under the objectors, had specifically and in writing represented that M/s. Surisons Enterprises/IP No.39 was its sister concern. The sister concern is always subservient to the principal and has no independent right or claim. It is further stated that M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries has already agreed in writing that in the event of acquisition of tenanted property, it shall not be entitled to any compensation. When M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries is not entitled to any compensation as per written agreement between the landlord and tenant, then how the sister concern of such tenant can claim LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 46/171 compensation. It is further stated that IP No. 46 has filed an eviction petition against M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries/IP No. 45 and M/s. Surisons Enterprises & others which is pending adjudication. In that case all persons in occupation whether as a tenant, authorized or illegal sub tenants all were made parties and these persons never disclosed nor IP No. 39 has taken stand that the claimant is in possession of the property, claimed to be in their possession in the present petition. It is stated that this is an after thought and concocted stand. Neither M/s S.S. Cycle Industries nor its sister concern M/s. Surisons Enterprises are entitled to any compensation and their claim is not maintainable. On merits, averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
37. IP No. 41 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant was a tenant and in possession of a shop measuring 8' x 20' on the ground floor and basement of the same area and has been running the trading in the car accessories in the name and style of Shri Ram Engineering Works. It is further stated that the aforesaid property has been acquired and possession of the same has been taken over by the LAC from the claimant. The father of the claimant LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 47/171 took a portion of the property on rent in the year 1991 and has been running the business since then along with one Shri Tilak Raj S/o Shri Ladha Ram as partner. Sh. Tilak Raj retired from the business vide retirement deed dated 16.03.1994 and thereafter the father of the claimant Shri Mohinder Singh was running the business as sole proprietor thereof. After the death of Sh.Mohinder Singh on 04.05.1994, the claimant alone has been running the business. It is further stated that the father of the claimant was a tenant under M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries on the basis of written rent deed dated 18.11.1991. It is further stated that right from the date of rent deed the claimant's father and thereafter the claimant has been in possession of the aforesaid commercial premises continuously without any interruption till the date the possession of the same was taken over by the LAC. The claimant is entitled to a major amount of compensation as it is the claimant who has suffered more on account of acquisition by total deprivation of his business in the aforesaid shop. The claimant claims 83% of the compensation in respect of the area which has been deposited in this Court for the acquired area measuring 8' x 19' out of a total area of the shop.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of M/s. Shri Ram Engineering Works/ IP No. 41 stated that claimant is neither an interested person nor entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. IP No. 46 has never had any privity of contract with the claimant in respect of any portion of the acquired land. It is stated that contents of all the paras no. 1 LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 48/171 to 8 and prayer are specifically denied in toto. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
38. IP No. 43 in its statement of claim stated that the claimant was a tenant and thereafter permanent lessee for 99 years of the shop measuring 9'.1" x 13' in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi with effect from 1st day of December, 1980 vide Lease Deed dated 01.12.1982 executed by M/s. Jeewan Industries Private Ltd. through its Managing Director Sh. Jeewan Lal Virmani, who was also the sole owner of the entire land in favour of Sh. Anil Vohra, son of Sh. J.N. Vohra. It is further stated that the claimant is protected from eviction by various statues and has status equivalent to that of occupancy tenant. The claimant as such is entitled to a major part of the compensation that may be assessed for the property under the tenancy of the claimant. It is further stated that the interest of the lessor is a limited interest and is entitled to a sum of Rs.33.60 for a period of one year as lease money and infact, after lessor received premium besides payment of lease money from the claimant. The only interest for 99 years in the property of the lessor is to receive Rs.33.60 per year. It is further stated that the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 49/171 perpetual lease was in fact a sale and that the claimant is entitled to receive full amount of compensation that may be assessed for the land. The entire structures were also raised and belong to the claimant. The Property Tax, electric connections were directly in the name of the claimant.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 43 stated that claimant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of land/construction thereon forming part of land/property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated that Claimant has failed to rely on any admissible document in support of its claim that it was a lessee of M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. No lease deed was executed in favour of M/s. V.K. Industries. The claimant has failed to rely on any admissible document in support of the claim i.e. the firm is a perpetual lessee. It is submitted that M/s. S.S. Cycle, IP No. 45, has already filed certified copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 24.12.2004, which was executed between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. (IP No.46) and owners of the land Mr. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
39. IP No. 45 in its statement of claim stated that Sh.Madan Lal Suri is one of the partner of the claimant firm to the extent of 50% share whereas S/Shri Ravi Raj Sabharwal, Ashok Kumar Sabharwal and Ashwini Kumar Sabharwal are LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 50/171 partners in equal shares for the remaining 50% share in M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries. Initially M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries started functioning on the property bearing No. 69, which is now known as 69/6A, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Patel Road, New Delhi since 01.01.1957. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed on 15.10.1974 between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. And M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries comprising of two partners Sh.Madan Lal Suri and Sh. Shiv Das Sabharwal (Predecessor in interest of S/Shri Ravi Raj Sabharwal, Ahok Kumar Sabharwal and Ashwini Kumar Sabharwal in respect of built up property total measuring 847 Sq. Yds.). It is further stated that out of the aforesaid area of 847 Sq. Yds., land measuring 563 square yards has been acquired by the Government under the Award under reference and the remaining area of 284 square yards is still in the possession of the claimant. It is further stated that out of 563 square yards, which was acquired by the Government, land measuring 136 square yards (129+7) square yards was built up by M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. And the balance 427 square yards was constructed by M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries with their own funds and with the prior permission of M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. It is further stated that vide another agreement dated 01.08.1977 executed in between the same parties, land measuring 153 square yards over and above mentioned land of 847 square yards was taken on lease by the claimant and whole of this land of 153 square yards has been acquired by the Government. It is further stated that in respect of 153 square yards, which was the subject matter of lease deed dated 01.08.1977, an eviction petition had been filed by M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. Which has been dismissed by the court of ARC, Delhi and the possession of the said land was LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 51/171 taken by the LAC directly from the claimant along with structure. It is further stated that M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. had given no objection for further letting the land to M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries and to various perons who are also IPs in the present reference. It I further stated that the claimant was protected under various statures i.e. Delhi Rent Control Act etc, the lease was subsisting and the possession of the property was taken over directly from the claimant or from the sub tenants. Still an area of 284 square yards, out of the total area is under the tenancy of the claimant. It is stated that the claimant is entitled to major share in the compensation. It is further stated that the claimant is entitled to 87% of the amount of compensation.
IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP No. 45 stated that neither above named claimant i.e. IP No. 45 M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries nor any of its alleged partners, i.e. Ravi Raj Sabharwal, Ashok Kumar Sabharwal, Ashwani Kumar Sabharwal and Sh. Madan Lal Suir or any of its sub tenants are entitled for any compensation. It is further stated that the partners of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries cannot claim any share in the compensation amount because when there is no right or entitlement available to the tenant M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, there cannot be any question of such a right available to partners of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, as the partners are not independent of firm M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries nor such a right can be available to any of the sub-tenants of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries. It is further stated that M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries was inducted as a tenant in respect of two properties, (i) 153 sq. yds of open space in a portion of property no. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi by virtue of a LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 52/171 Rent Deed dated 01.08.1977. It is further stated that vide Clause no. 18 of the said Rent Deed, it was agreed that "In case area is acquired by government at any future date the Lessor Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd will be entitled to all the cash compensation payable for the open area." It is further stated that after terminating the tenancy of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries in respect of above said property, M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. Filed a suit for recovery of possession claiming that M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries was no more a tenant and its tenancy stood terminated. The said suit was decreed by Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2008. The judgment and decree has become final and is binding on all the parties to the suit. It is further stated that there was another property in respect of which tenancy was created between Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. And M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries in respect of a shed measuring 129 sq. yards, a room measuring 7 sq. yards and open area of 711 sq. yards, totaling 847 sq. yards, vide rent deed dated 15.10.1974. In the said rent deed, it was agreed that " If any portion of the area or structure is acquired by government, which is in possession of M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, the lessors will be entitled to all the cash compensation payable for the same and the lessees M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries will have no objection to the same". M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd filed a suit no. 345/98 against M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries and others, while referring to the existence and execution of rent deed dated 15.10.1974 M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries in its written statement and during evidence has proved this rent deed and admitted its existence by giving statement on oath. It is stated that neither M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries nor any of its partners or any of its sub-tenants are entitled to claim any LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 53/171 compensation. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim are denied. It is submitted that as per registered agreement between M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd./ IP No. 46 and paramount lessors Mr. Harish Virmani/IP No.1 and Mrs. Poonam Virmani/IP No.2, it is agreed that the compensation shall go to paramount lessors Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani. The entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have nay compensation as prayed.
40. IP No. 46 in its statement of claim stated that M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries (IP No. 45) has already filed certified copy of the registered lease deed dated 24.12.2004 which lease Deed was executed between Jiwan Industries Pvt. And owners of the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition, namely Sh. Harish Virmani (IP No.1) and Mrs. Poonam Virmani (IP No.2). It is further stated that the entire compensation is payable to Sh. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. No other person/ firm/ company is entitled to any compensation.
41. IP No. 46 in its objections to the claim of the IP Nos. 5, 11, 27 & 35 stated that the above named claimants i.e. IP No. 5 Surisons Industries, IP No. 11 Nitish Enterprises, IP No. 27 Mono Industries and IP No. 35 Puja Rubber Industries are guilty of suppression of material facts. It is further stated that they have concealed that IP No. 46 filed a suit for eviction against all of them and it was decreed on 12.07.2005 by the court of Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Ld. Civil LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 54/171 Judge, Delhi and none of the claimants are entitled to any share in the amount of compensation. It is further stated that a total of 600 sq. yards of area was let out to the partnership firm of M/s. Surisons Industry of which Mrs. Usha Suri and Mr. Jugal Kishore Suri were partners. This partnership firm changed into proprietorship firm of Mrs. Usha Suri and the result was that Mr. Jugal Kishore Suri was left with no right, title or interest or possession even in any of the area out of 600 sq. yards. It is further stated that the above changed and factual position is already admitted by Mrs. Usha Suri, wife of Sh.Jugal Kishore Suri in her Civil Suit No. 483/80 and is also confirmed by the findings as given vide judgment and decree of the court in suit no. 12/94. It is confirmed in the said suit that the tenancy in respect of 600 sq. yards of land was left with only Mrs. Usha Suri and further, IP no. 27, IP No. 11, IP No.5. IP No. 46 had no privity with IP No. 11 and IP No.
27. It is further stated that the tenancy of M/s. Surisons Industries was terminated by M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. i.e. by the lessor vide registered AD notice dated 20.10.1993. It is further stated that vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 passed in suit no. 12/94, it is now finally held that the tenancy of defendants nos. 1 to 3 was rightly determined with effect from 30.11.1993 and that the Objector M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. was held entitled to the possession of the acquired land. Right of M/s. Surisons Industries in respect of the tenanted land stood determined with effect from the date of service of notice i.e. 20.10.1993 and as such the tenants were left with no right, title or interest in the land measuring 600 sq. yards which was let out to M/s. Surisons Industries. It is submitted that as per registered agreement between M/s. Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd./ IP No. 46 and paramount lessors Mr. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 55/171 Harish Virmani/IP No.1 and Mrs. Poonam Virmani/IP No.2, it is agreed that the compensation shall go to paramount lessors Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani. The entire compensation is payable to Mr. Harish Virmani and Mrs. Poonam Virmani in ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively. The present claimant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to have any compensation as prayed.
42. IP Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 44, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 34, 35, 38, 41 and 43 have filed rejoinders to the objections filed by IP No. 46. In which they have almost reiterated the averments made in their respective statement of claims.
43. Several applications under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for compromise filed by IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 jointly with IP Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 45.
44. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 3, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 3 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 56/171
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 3 would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 70.25 sq mtrs on the Ground floor and 40% of the 20% of 40.47 Sq.
mtrs on the first floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 3 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 3 would be paid solely to IP No. 3 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 57/171 given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
45. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 4, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 4 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 4 would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 34 sq mtrs along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 58/171 both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 4 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 4 would be paid solely to IP No. 4 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP - 46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
46. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 6, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 6 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 6 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 10.86 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 59/171
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 6 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 6 would be paid solely to IP No. 6 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
47. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 7, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 60/171 compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 7 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 7 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 12.5 Sq. mtrs along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 7 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 7 would be paid solely to IP No. 7 without any objection/share from any other party.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 61/171 Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
48. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 8, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 8 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 8 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 9.25 Sq. mtrs (first floor) with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 62/171 any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 8 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 8 would be paid solely to IP No. 8 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
49. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 9, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 9 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 63/171 no. 9 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 9.3 Sq. mtrs oin the ground floor with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 9 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 9 would be paid solely to IP No. 9 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP - 46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
50. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 10, it is stated that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 64/171 the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 10 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 10 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 11 Sq. mtrs plus 7 Sq Mtrs = 18 Sq Mtrs, with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 10 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 65/171
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 10 would be paid solely to IP No. 10 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
51. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 11, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 11 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 11 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 55.0 Sq. mtrs (66 Sq. Yds.) with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 66/171 India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 11 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 11 would be paid solely to IP No. 11 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
52. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 12, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 12 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 67/171
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 12 would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 12.77 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That in addition to the above stated area, IP No.12 is in possession of another parcel of area admeasuring 10.25 sq mtrs on the first floor and in the said area IP 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of the compensation and IP No.12 would be entitled to 10% of the said amount of compensation.
(iii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iv). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(v). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 12 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(vi) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 12 would be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 68/171 paid solely to IP No. 12 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
53. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 13, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 13 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 13 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 24 Sq. mtrs on the ground floor and the IP No. 13 would also be entitled to 10% amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 6.66 sq mtrs on the first floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 69/171 India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 13 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 13 would be paid solely to IP No. 13 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
54. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 14, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 14 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 70/171
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 25% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 14 would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 29.7 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That in addition to the above stated area, IP no. 14 is in possession of another parcel of area admeasuring 21.82 sq mtrs on the first floor and in the said IP 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation and IP No. 14 would be entitled to 10% of the said amount of compensation.
(iii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iv). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(v). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 14 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(vi) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 14 would be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 71/171 paid solely to IP No. 14 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
55. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 15, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that IP 1, 2 and 46 are the owners/landlors/lessees of the land situated in property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and the above said IPs, in the capacity of its sole landlord has let out the land to various tenants/ sub tenants/occupiers who have been duly impleaded as IP 3 to 45. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 15 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 15 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation in the capacity of tenant/ sub tenant pertaining to area admeasuring 12.60 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 72/171 entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 15 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 15 would be paid solely to IP No. 15 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
56. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 16, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 73/171 16 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 16 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 12.6 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 16 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 16 would be paid solely to IP No. 16 without any objection/share from any other party.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 74/171 Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
57. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No.17, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 17 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 17 would be entitled to 40% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 26.54 Sq. mtrs on the First floor with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 75/171 any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 17 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 17 would be paid solely to IP No. 17 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
58. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 18, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 18 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 76/171 no. 18 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 17 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 18 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 18 would be paid solely to IP No. 18 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
59. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 20, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 77/171 reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 20 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by both the parties in the Civil appeals pending in the court of Smt. Seema Maini, ADJ, Delhi on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 82.5% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 20 would be entitled to 17.5% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 100.33 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 20 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 78/171
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 20 would be paid solely to IP No. 20 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
60. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 21, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 21 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IP no. 21 would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition to area admeasuring 6.96 Sq. mtrs.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 79/171
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No.
22 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 21 would be paid solely to IP No. 21 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
61. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 22, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 22 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 80/171 the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 22 would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 6.27 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 22 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 22 would be paid solely to IP No. 22 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
62. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 23, it is stated that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 81/171 the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 23 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 23 would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 35.58 Sq. mtrs on the Ground floor and 40% of the 20% of 41.66 Sq. mtrs on the first floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 23 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 82/171 No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 23 would be paid solely to IP No. 23 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
63. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 25, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 25 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 25 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 4 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 83/171 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 25 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 25 would be paid solely to IP No. 25 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
64. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 26, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that IP 1, 2 and 46 are the owners/landlors/lessees of the land situated in property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and the above said IPs, in the capacity of its sole landlord has let out the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 84/171 land to various tenants/ sub tenants/occupiers who have been duly impleaded as IP 3 to 45. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 26 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 25% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 26 would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation in the capacity of tenant/ sub tenant pertaining to area admeasuring 7.40 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 26 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 85/171 which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 26 would be paid solely to IP No. 26 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
65. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 27, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 27 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 27 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 167.5 Sq. mtrs (200 Sq. Yds.) with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 86/171 whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 27 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 27 would be paid solely to IP No. 27 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
66. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 28, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 28 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 87/171 total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 28 would be entitled to 40% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 4.43 Sq. mtrs on the First floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 28 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 28 would be paid solely to IP No. 28 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 88/171 mentioned above.
67. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 29, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 29 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 29 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 12.6 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 89/171 29 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 29 would be paid solely to IP No. 29 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
68. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 31, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that IP 1, 2 and 46 are the owners/landlors/lessees of the land situated in property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and the above said IPs, in the capacity of its sole landlord has let out the land to various tenants/ sub tenants/occupiers who have been duly impleaded as IP 3 to 45. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 29 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 95% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 90/171 the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 31 would be entitled to 5% of the total amount of compensation in the capacity of tenant/ sub tenant pertaining to area admeasuring 10.41 sq. yds. at G floor @ 5% and 20.83 sq. yds. @ 5% at F Floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 31 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 31 would be paid solely to IP No. 31 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 91/171
69. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 32, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 32 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 32 would be entitled to 40% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 69.68 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 32 on the other would not institute any case against each LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 92/171 other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 32 would be paid solely to IP No. 32 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
70. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 34, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 34 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 34 would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 147.20 Sq. mtrs on the ground floor and 40% of the 20% of 103.24 Sq mtrs on the first floor along with proportionate LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 93/171 interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 34 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 34 would be paid solely to IP No. 34 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
71. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 37, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 94/171 of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 37 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 37 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 9.3 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 37 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 37 would be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 95/171 paid solely to IP No. 37 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
72. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 38, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 38 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 38 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 27 Sq. mtrs on the ground floor with proportionate interest as mentioned above. It is also clarified that there is no other land for which compensation is to be assessed in favour of IP No. 38 except area admeasuring 27 Sq Mtrs on the ground floor.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 96/171 India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 38 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 38 would be paid solely to IP No. 38 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
73. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 39, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 39 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 97/171
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 39 would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 175.01 Sq. mtrs on the Ground floor and 40% of the 20% of 41.75 Sq. mtrs on the first floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 39 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 39 would be paid solely to IP No. 39 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 98/171 given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
74. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 40, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 40 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 90% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 40 would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 5.0 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 99/171 both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 40 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 40 would be paid solely to IP No. 40 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
75. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 41, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 41 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 41 would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 100/171 14.90 Sq. mtrs on the Ground floor with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 41 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 41 would be paid solely to IP No. 41 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
76. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 43, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 101/171 of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 43 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 25% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 43 would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 10.84 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 43 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 43 would be LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 102/171 paid solely to IP No. 43 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
77. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 44, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromise between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 44 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 44 would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 10 Sq. mtrs with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
(ii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 103/171
(iii). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(iv). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 44 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
(v) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 44 would be paid solely to IP No. 44 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
78. In application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed by IP No. 1, 2, & 46 with IP No. 45, it is stated that the LAC has acquired the land of the IPs and has sent a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act for disbursement of the amount of compensation between IP Nos. 1 to 46. It is further stated that now the matter has been amicably compromised between IP Nos. 1, 2, 46 on one hand and IP No. 45 on the other hand without prejudice to the rights and contentions mentioned by on the following terms and conditions:
(i). IP no. 45 does not claim any right in compensation with LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 104/171 respect to 153 sq yds and IP 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 100 % of the said amount of compensation.
(ii). That IPs 1, 2 and 46 would be entitled to 80% of the total amount of compensation sent by the LAC vide above reference along with proportionate interest duly accrued on the amount sent by way of present reference petition and IP no. 45 would be entitled to 40% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area admeasuring 140.41 Sq. mtrs on the First floor along with proportionate interest as mentioned above.
That out of the ratio mentioned above i.e. 40% of 20%, pertaining to area admeasuring 140.41 sq mtrs, Shri Sanjesh Suri will be entitled to 50% of the amount of compensation, Shri Ravi Raj Sabharwal would be entitled to 17%, Shri Ashok Kumar Sabharwal and Smt. Anita Sabharwal would be entitled to 16.5 % each.
(iii). That the above noted IPs/ applicants would also be entitled to proportionate enhanced amount of compensation which would be enhanced by any/all courts of law including the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court of India and the other party would not have any objection whatsoever to the same.
(iv). That the above noted IPs are free to apply for allotment of alternative accommodation as per their area acquired from any concerned Govt agency and the other party would not have any objection to the same.
(v). That it is mutually agreed to between the parties, that both parties i.e. IP No. 1, 2 and 46 on the one hand and IP No. 37 on the other would not institute any case against each other pertaining to any part of the acquired property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 105/171
(vi) That it is also mutually agreed to between the parties that the amount of compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 45 would be paid solely to IP No. 45 without any objection/share from any other party.
Parties seek that the above noted compromise may be given effect to and the various IPs i.e. IP -46 may be given the amount of compensation as per the ratio mentioned above.
79. In view of the aforesaid compromise, it is held that IP No. 3 M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Company through its partners Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena and Smt. Shashi Saxena would be entitled to 60% of 20% of the total compensation pertaining to the area ad-measuring 70.25 sq. meters on ground floor and 40% of 20% of 40.47 sq. meters on first floor along with proportionate interest in 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.3. IP No. 3 will not claim any amount over and above the stated ratio and application qua 70.25 sq. meter in the ground floor. IP No. 1, 2 & 46 will have no objection to the alternative plot as per the area ad-measuring 106.90 sq. meter.
80. IP No. 4 M/s. Hind Electronic Industries would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 34 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.4.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 106/171
81. IP No. 6 Sh. Jaspal Singh would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 10.86 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.6.
82. IP No. 7 M/s. Cecon Engineers through its Prop. Sh. Mahinder Nayyar would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 12.5 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.7.
83. IP No. 8 M/s. Bright Sharpening through its Prop. Sh. Devinder Sharma would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 9.25 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.8.
84. IP No. 9 Smt. Laxmi Devi would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 9.3 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on the ground floor along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.9.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 107/171
85. IP No. 10 M/s. Bhawana Sales Corporation through its partners Smt. Deema Duggal would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 18 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 10.
86. IP No. 11 M/s. Nitisha Enterprises through its Prop. Smt. Nirmal Rathore would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 55 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.11.
87. IP No. 12 M/s. Goel Bros. Through its Prop. Sh.Chander Mohan Goel would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 10.25 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.12.
88. IP No. 13 M/s. Asha Deep Industries through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 6.66 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.13.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 108/171
89. IP No. 14 M/s. Mec Engineering Corporation would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 29.70 sq. meter and 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 21.82 sq. meter on the first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.14.
90. IP No. 15 M/s. Thomson & Thomson through its Prop. Sh. P.G. Thomas would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 12.60 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.15.
91. IP No. 16 M/s. Ahuja Stationers & Supplier through its Prop. Smt. Neelam Ahuja would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 12.6 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.16.
92. IP No. 17 M/s. Gargson Auto Plast through Prop. sh. Arun Kumar Garg would be entitled to 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 26.54 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 109/171 New Delhi on the first floor along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.17.
93. IP No. 18 M/s. Amrik Engineering Works through its Prop. Sh. Amrik Singh would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 17.00 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.18.
94. IP No. 20 M/s. Edison Electricals, through its partner Sh. Deepak Devgan would be entitled to 17.5% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 100.33 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.20.
95. IP No. 22 M/s. ASVK Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Sh. Kamal Vohra would be entitled to 60% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 35.58 sq. meter and 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 41.66 sq. meter on the first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.22.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 110/171
96. IP No. 23 M/s. Divya Automats through its proprietor Ms. Usha Mehta and attorney Sh. Ashok Mehta would be entitled to 60% of the 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 35.58 sq. mtrs. On the ground floor and 40% of the 20% of 41.66 sq. mtrs. on the first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.23.
97. IP No. 25 M/s. Paul Welding Works through its Proprietor Mrs. Jolly Paul would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 4.00 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.25.
98. IP No. 26 M/s. Bombay Madras Good Carriers through its Proprietor Sh. Narender Doomra would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 7.40 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.26.
99. IP No. 27 M/s. Mono Industries through its Proprietor Smt. Mohini Rastogi would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 167.5 sq. meter along with proportionate interest LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 111/171 in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.27.
100. IP No. 28 M/s. S.K. Metal & Wires through its Prop. sh. Sandeep Sharma would be entitled to 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 4.43 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.28.
101. IP No.29 Smt. Parmila Devi would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 12.06 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.29.
102. IP No. 31 M/s. Agro Heat Engineers through its prop. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal would be entitled to 5% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 10.40 sq. yards at ground floor and 5 % of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 20.83 sq. yards at first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.31.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 112/171
103. IP No. 32 M/s. Nisha Cables would be entitled to 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 69.68 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on the first floor along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.32.
104. IP No. 34 M/s. Popular Rubber Industries would be entitled to 60% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 147.20 sq. meter on the ground floor and 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 103.24 sq. meter on the first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.34.
105. IP No. 37 M/s. Bachan Pan Bhandar through its Prop. Sh. Ram Bachan would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 9.3 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.37.
106. IP No.38, M/s. Space Conditioning Corporation through its prop. Sh. K.C. Anand would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 27 sq. meter along with LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 113/171 proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.38.
107. IP No. 39 M/s. Surisons Enterprises would be entitled to 60% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 175.01 sq. meter on the ground floor and 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 41.75 sq. meter on the first floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.39.
108. IP No. 40 M/s. Pankaj Tea Stall would be entitled to 10% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 5 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.40.
109. IP No. 41 M/s. Shri Ram Engineering Works through its Prop. Sh. Gurmeet Singh would be entitled to 60% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 14.90 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on the ground floor along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.41.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 114/171
110. IP No. 43 M/s. Veekay Industries through its Prop. Sh. Kamal Vohra would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 10.84 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.43.
111. IP No. 44 M/s. Asha Deep Industries through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua would be entitled to 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad- measuring 10.00 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.44.
112. IP No. 45 M/s. S.S. Cycle Industries, through its partner Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal would be entitled to 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 140.41 sq. meter on the first floor and 40% of 20% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 140.41 sq. meter on the ground floor along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.45.
113. As stated in the compromise application, Sh.Sanjesh Suri will be entitled to 50% of the amount of compensation, Sh. Ravi Raj Sabharwal would be entitled to 17% of the amount of compensation, Sh. Ashok Kumar LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 115/171 Sabharwal and Ms. Anita Sabharwal would be entitled to 16.5% each in the above stated ratio out of the total area ad-measuring 140.41 sq. meter.
114. The amount of structure mentioned in the award will be paid only to the respective tenants as per compromise.
115. It is pertinent to mention that IP No. 36 vide statement dated 29.11.2017 relinquished his right in favour of IP No. 3. IP No. 19, IP No. 33 and IP No. 42 withdraw their claims as per order and statement dated 02.02.2013. However, as per record there is no claim filed by IP No. 33 and IP No. 42. IP No. 30 proceeded ex- parte on 05.05.2009.
116. Now the contesting IPs are IP No. 5, IP No.21, IP No. 24 and IP No. 35.
117. The claim filed by IPs No. 5, 21, 24 and 35 have already been detailed above.
118. IP No. 5 M/s. Surisons Industries got examined Sh.Atul Suri, GPA Holder of Sole Proprietor of IP No.5 Smt.Usha Suri, as IP5W1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP5W1/A, in which he reiterated the averments made in the claim.
119. In the cross-examination on behalf of IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46, the IP5W1 deposed that his mother is unable to come to court due to old age. He admitted that 600 sq. yards was LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 116/171 given to M/s. Suri Sons on 27.07.1957. He admitted that after initial leven months the land was given on rent for further period to M/s. Suri Sons. He admitted that tenancy was from month to month. He admitted that M/s. Jiwan Industries by issuing a notice dated 20.10.1993 terminated the tenancy of M/s. Suri Sons. He admitted that a notice of termination of tenancy is Ex. IP5W1/2. He admitted that a suit for possession was filed by M/s. Jiwan Industries against M/s. Suri Sons. He admitted that after service of the notice a judgment and decree was passed by the court of Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan, the then Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi in suit No. 12/94 vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 by which the suit was decreed for recovery of possession against the tenants as well as sub tenants. The certified copy of the judgment and decree is IP5W1/3. He volunteered that this decree has been stayed in a suit pendng in Karkardooma Court by the court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, ADJ, Delhi. He did not remember the date of the order by which the decree is stayed. He admitted that decree was stayed subject to the condition that decreed amount shall be deposited by them within a period of one month in the court.
120. IP5W1 in his cross-examination admitted that they have not deposited the decreed amount. He admitted that they have not deposited the decreed amount. He admitted that his statement was recorded in the court of Sh.Rakesh Tiwari, ADJ, Delhi in suit no. 229/06 filed by M/s.Jiwan Industries, certified copy of his statement is Ex.IP5W1/4. He admit the certified copy of the site plan Ex. IP5W1/5 filed in the case which was decreed by Sh.R.K.Chauhan, ADJ, Delhi. He admitted that in the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 117/171 judgment given by Sh. R.K. Chauhan, the letter Mark A has already been declared forged by the court. He did not know whether M/s. Suri Sons was authorized or not or create sub tenancy. He did not know whether sub tenants had filed any appeal or not against the decree of the court of Sh. R.K. Chauhan. He admitted that their appeal has been adjourned sine die by the court. He admitted that he is not a purchaser in any of the sale deed executed by Jiwan Industries. He denied the suggestion that he has no right to challenge the sale deed. He did not think so that he has any right in the sale deed executed by Jiwan Industries. He denied the suggestion that entire 600 sq. yard land has been acquired by the government.
121. IP5W1 in his cross-examination admitted that they have fled claim petition for entire 600 sq. yard vide IP5W1/6. He volunteered that it was filed in anticipation but actually part of this land has been acquired. He is not aware about the calculation sheet prepared by the LAC regarding the area acquired. He did not know whether the 15 mt. Width was acquired by the government. He denied the suggestion that they were unauthorized occupants of the land and entire 600 sq. yards have been acquired by the government on 25.10.2005. He denied the suggestion that his affidavit is wrong and he is deposing falsely. He volunteered that the possession of the land was taken by the government from them and not from Jiwan Industries. This fact is mentioned in the record of MCD. He admitted that they have not in possession of a documentary evidence to show that the possession was taken from them. He did not remember the date when the possession was taken by LAC. He was present LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 118/171 at the time of taking of possession. About 10-15 days were taken by LAC officials in taking possession and for demolition the structure existing on it. He did not remember the date or month when the possession has taken. He did not remember the name and designation of the officials who had come to take the possession. He denied the suggestion that his statement to above effect is false. He denied the suggestion that he did not know about the fact of taking of possession by the LAC.
122. IP No. 24 M/s. A. Kay Industries (India) got examined its proprietor Sh. Ashok Kumar Narang as IP24W1,; Sh. Mahender Kumar, Assistant Grade-I from TATA Power as IP24W2; Sh. Yudhveer Singh, Factory Inspector, NDMC as IP24W3; Sh. Sanjiv Narang, Chief Section Supervisor, MTNL as IP24W4; and Sh. Naveen Atri, Record Keeper, North MCD as IP24W5.
123. IP24W1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Narang tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP24W1/P. He proved on record copy of lease deed dated 1st Jan. 1977 as Ex. IP24/W1/A (OSR), Notice dated 21.12.1974 received by him from the Income Tax Department as Ex. IP 24/W1/B (OSR), the copy of the Registration certificate issued by MCD Licensing Department as Ex. IP 24/W1/C (OSR), Copy of letter dated 8.11.2004 as Ex. IP-24/W1/D (OSR), the copies of the rent receipt dated 16.01.78, 25.01.1979 and 15.01.1994 as Ex. IP 24/W1/E-1 to 3 respectively (OSR), copy of Bill dated 8.12.2005 as Ex. IP 24/W1/F, copy of electricity bill dated 7 th October, 2003 as Ex. IP 24/W1/G (OSR) and the copy of the Status report filed by MCD as Ex. IP 24/W-1/H. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 119/171
124. In the cross-examination IP24W1 admitted that IP No. 46 filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The said suit was titled as Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Narang. He is not aware if the said suit was decreed in favour of IP No. 46. He further admitted that he received a legal notice dated 28.12.2001 regarding termination of my tenancy. He had sent a reply through his counsel to the above said notice. The notice dated 28.12.2001 is Ex. IP 24W1/D1. The reply to the said notice was sent by his counsel on 07.01.2002 the same is Ex. IP24W1/D2. He is not aware a decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 3,79,176/- was passed against him. The copy of the judgment passed by the court of Ms Sanigda Sarvaria, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi is Ex. IP24W1/D3. He is not aware if he had filed an appeal being MCA No. 01/11 titled as Sh. A.K. Narang Vs Jeeven Industries Pvt. Ltd. He volunteered that at that time he was suffering from heart ailment. He is aware that appeal was pending before the court of Ms Sukhvinder Kaur, ld. ADJ which was dismissed on 7th January, 2011. The certified copy of the judgment passed by Ms Sukhvinder Kaur is Ex. IP24W1/D4. He denied the suggestion that since his tenancy was terminated by IP No. 46 in the year 2001 and there upon suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits was filed which were decreed and appeal preferred by him was dismissed so he is not entitled to any compensation of the land in question as tenant. He has not paid the damages of Rs. 3,79,176/- to IP No. 46. He volunteered that his four rooms were forcibly taken possession by IP No. 46 in the year 2011. He denied the suggestion that the possession of four rooms were taken as per court order by bailiff. He put his LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 120/171 signatures in English. He admitted that Ex. IP24W1/D5 bears his signatures at point X.
125. IP24W2 Shri Mahender Kumar deposed that he has brought the summoned record regarding electricity meter installed in the property bearing no. 69/6A in the name of A.K. Industries bearing connection no. 33100122857J in the year 1986 and disconnected in the year 2006. The copy of the Bill is already exhibited as Ex. IP24/W1/G. The copy of summary of this connection is Ex. IP24/W2/A. This witness has not been cross-examined.
126. IP24W3 Shri Yudhveer Singh, Factory Inspector, NDMC, 11th floor, Civic Center, New Delhi deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e factory licence issued by MCD bearing no. 88836 in the name of M/s A.K. Industries ( India). The original of the same is already exhibited as Ex. IP24/W1/C which was issued by our department. The license was valid till 2000. This witness has not been cross- examined.
127. IP24W4 Shri Sanjiv Narang, Chief Section Supervisor, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi deposed that he has brought the summoned record regarding telephone 25932797 opened on 3.10.79 in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Narang and it was installed at 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-15. The computer generated statement having the installation record is Ex. IP24W4/A. This telephone number remained till 15.09.2009. This witness has not been cross- examined.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 121/171
128. IP24W5 Shri Naveen Atri, Record Keeper, MCD, North MCD, Municipal Secretary office, Delhi deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e original Resolution Volume. He has brought the original Resolution No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 item No. 100. The photocopy of the same is Ex. IP24W5/A (OSR). This witness has not been cross- examined.
129. IP35W1 Shri Sanjesh Suri S/o late Sh. M.L. Suri deposed that he is S.P.A. holder of Mrs Sapna Suri and other L.Rs of IP No. 5 & 35 and the copy of SPA is Ex. IP35W1/A (OSR) and tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. IP35W1/1 which bears his signatures at point A & B. He rely upon the copy of partnership deed of Surison Industries IP -5 with IP No. 46 as Ex. IP35/W1/B, copy of bill dated 10.01.2005 issued by NDPL as Ex. IP35W1/C, the photocopy of license issued by MDC Licensing Department Karol Bagh Zone and one receipt is Ex. IP-35W1/C1 & C2 and copy of claim petition u/s 9 & 10 of L.A Act 1984 as Ex. IP-5W1/D. All these documents mentioned in his affidavit are already exhibited in the evidence of IP No. 5 Sh. Atul Suri. He also rely on the said documents. In the affidavit, this witness has reiterated the averments as made by IPs no. 5 & 35 in their claims.
130. In the cross-examination on behalf of IPs No. 1, 2 and 46, this witness deposed that Smt. Sapna Suri is hale and hearty and moves around without any problem. He did not remember the exact date as to when the alleged sub-tenancy commenced. He even cannot tell the approximate date and year when the alleged sub-tenancy commenced. He cannot produce any document to show that IP No. 35 was a sub-
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 122/171 tenant of IP No. 5 (Surisons). He had seen a document whereby M/s Surisons had a right to sub-let. The said letter has been filed in another suit and it is not in his possession. At the time when the alleged sub-tenancy was created the premises were built up. However, he did not know what super structure was allegedly sublet to IP No. 35. He admitted that on some receipts which were issued by M/s. Jeevan Industries (IP No. 46) in favour of M/s. Surisons "open space" was mentioned. He know Usha Suri. He admitted that Ms. Usha Suri filed a suit being suit No. 483/80 against MCD and he is not aware that in the said suit Usha Suri had described the suit land "a piece of land". He is not aware if in the said suit it was stated by Smt. Usha Suri that her husband had constructed temporary super structure. He admitted that he was not present when the alleged sub-tenancy was created in favour of IP No. 35. The area which was allegedly given as sub-tenant to IP No. 35 was 136.62 sq. meters. He is not aware if Smt. Usha Suri in her suit which was filed against MCD already exhibited as IPW1/6 had mentioned the area as 136.62 sq. yards. He is 54 years of age as on today. Late Sh. Jugal Suri was my uncle and Ms Sapna Suri is the daughter in law of late Sh. Jugal Suri. Sapna Suri is his cousin's wife. After the death of Usha Suri may be five years ago all here correspondence and litigation were looked after by his son Sh. Atul Suri. Sh. Atul Suri also died in the year 2015 and thereafter he has been looking after the correspondence and litigation of Usha Suri.
131. IP35W2 Shri Mahender Kumar, Assistant, Grade-I, from TATA Power, Inderpuri, Delhi deposed that he has brought the summoned record regarding electricity meter LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 123/171 installed in the property bearing no. 69 in the name of M/s Pooja Rubber Industries bearing connection no. 33100122598 and disconnected in the year 2006. The copy of the statement of accounts in this respect is Ex. IP35W2/A. This witness has not been cross-examined.
132. IP35W2 (wrongly numbered) Shri Mahender Kumar, Assistant, Grade-I, from TATA Power, Inderpuri, Delhi deposed that he has brought the summoned record regarding electricity meter installed in the property bearing no. 69 in the name of M/s Pooja Rubber Industries bearing connection no. 33100122598 and disconnected in the year 2006. The copy of the statement of accounts in this respect is Ex. IP35W2/A. This witness has not been cross-examined.
133. IP 46W1 Sh. Harish Virmani (IP NO.1) tendered his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the IP 46 M/s. Jiwan Industries as one of the Director as Ex. IP46W1/A, in which he almost reiterated the averments made in the claim filed on behalf of IP No.46. He relied upon the copy the copy of Resolution dated 18.08.2008 as Ex. IP46W/1 (OSR), the certified copies of rent receipt, notice dated 20.07.1999 and court order dated 8.2.2000 as Ex. IP46W1/2 ( Colly), legal notice of termination of tenancy dated 20.10.1993 already exhibited as Ex. IP5W1/2, Judgment and decree and plan dated 12.07.2005 already exhibited as Ex. IP5W1/3 to Ex. IP5W1/5. He also relied upon the certified copy of the field Book as Ex. IP46W1/3.
134. IP46W1 in his cross-examination by Shri R.K. Singh, counsel for IP Nos 5, 24 & 35 admitted that Ms. LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 124/171 Poonam Virmani has not filed her separate affidavit. Smt. Poonam Virmani is his wife and he look after all the matter relating to the properties for and on behalf of Smt. Poonam Virmani and Jeevan Industries, IP No. 46. He admitted that Smt. Poonam Virmani has filed her separate claim as IP No. 2. Smt. Poonam Virmani who is his wife had authorised him to depose on her behalf and Jeevan Industries has already authorised him by a Resolution which is Ex. IP46W1/1. There is no documentary proof on record that Smt. Poonam Virmani authorised him to depose on her behalf. He did not remember if IP No. 46 has filed a specific claim separately, it is a matter of record. He denied the suggestion that statement of claim of IP No. 46 is not entitled to any compensation. He did not remember in 1957 how many Directors were in IP No. 46. The minute book brought by him today has pagination but there is no Index. They have sent the minutes as per the procedure applicable to the concerned authorities. He has not filed original Incorporation certificate of M/s Jeevan Industries but he has brought the factum copy, copy of the same is Ex. IP46W1/X. He did not remember who is the owner of property no. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road however he has filed all the documents on record. He did not remember whether Mr.Jeevan Virmani had executed a lease deed in the 1967 for 20 years in favour of M/s Jeevan Industries which expires in 1984. He denid the suggestion that M/s Jeevan Industries has no ownership right in the year 1994.
135. IP46W1 in his cross-examination admitted that the filed book Ex IP46W1/3 prepared before the acquisition of the land in question. He denied the suggestion that he has not LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 125/171 filed deliberately and intentionally original site plan of the acquired land. He denied the suggestion that the total acquired land is 575 sq yard and not 600 sq. yard. He admitted that he had already compromised with Nitisha Enterprise and Monu Industries I.e. IP No. 11 and 27, who were sub-tenants of IP No. 5 and it is a matter of record. He admitted that all constructions have been done by IP No. 5 and other sub-tenants of IP No. 5. He volunteered that the said construction was illegal. He admitted that he has several litigation with Surisons Industries, IP No. 5. He is aware about the Resolution No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 of MCD which is already on record as Ex. IP24W5/A. He did not remember the date of registration of Sale Deed executed in favour of Harish Virmani and Poonam Virmani by Ashok Virmani and Kapil Virmani as a GPO Holder. He admitted the suggestion that sale deed was executed after the notification of 4, 6 & 17 of L.A. Act. He denied the suggestion that the LAC had taken possession of the acquired land directly from IP No. 3 to 45. He denied the suggestion that extension of lease in favour of Jeevan Industries were executed in December 24.12.2004. He admitted that extension of lease was executed after notification of 4, 6 & 17 of L.A. Act. As on date he and his wife are the two Directors of IP No. 46 M/s Jeevan Industries. He admitted that lease of Jeevan Industries was extended till 2013. He volunteered that it continued extended till today. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1957 at the time of Partnership Deed with IP No. 5 M/s Surisons some part of building was given by M/s Jeevan Industries. He denied the suggestion that Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. has not claimed any compensation in this case. He denied the suggetion that Jeevan Industries, IP No. 1, IP No. 2 are not entitled for any LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 126/171 compensation. He denied that IP No. 5 & 35 Surisons Industries are entitled for whole compensation of land measuring 575 sq. Yard which was in the possession of IP No. 5 since 1957. He denied that the land measuring 25 sq yards out of 600 sq. yards is still in possession of IP No. 5. He denied that IP No. 5 Surisons Industries was enjoying and running its business continuously since 1957 the date of Partnership Deed till the acquisition of land by the LAC on the land measuring 575 sq yards. He volunteered that entire 600 sq yards land was acquired.
136. Ms Dimple Dhamija, Ld. Counsel for IPs NO. 6,9,15,25,26,27,29,30,36,38 & 40 opted not to cross-examine this witness.
137. IPW-1 Sh. Harish Virmani also appeared on behalf of Ms. Poonam Virmani, the other Director of M/s. Jiwan Industries (IP No.46), who is his wife also and tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. IPW-1/A, in which he almost reiterated the claim filed on behalf of the IP No.46. He deposed that he rely upon the documents mentioned in his affidavit, the certified copies of which are already on the record and exhibited. He also rely upon the order of the Court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal in suit No. 556/10 dated 22.11.2010 as Ex. IPW-1/X. The documents already exhibited are Ex. IP14/W/1/D3. The judgment passed by the Court of Ms.Snigdha Sarvaria is dated 08.02.2013. The other document is Ex. IP24/W1/D4 is the judgment passed by the Court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur dated 07.01.2012. Another is notice of termination of tenancy dated 28.12.2001 exhibited as Ex. IP24/W/1/D1 which is a notice by Sh. K. S. Katari, Advocate. The other document is the reply to the said notice LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 127/171 by IP No. 24 sent by Sh. Sangat Singh Kalra dated 07.01.2002 which is already exhibited as Ex. IPW24/W/1/D2.
138. In the cross-examination by Sh. R.K. Singh, Counsel for the IP No. 24, this witness deposed that he has not filed any letter of authority on behalf of IP No.2 who is his wife but he is authorized. Agreement indicating the area rented out to A. K. Industries is already on record. The open space was let out. However the construction was raised by Sh. A. K. Narang. The rent agreement was filed by IP No.24 himself. In the affidavit, there is a typographical error and actually the year of agreement is 1977 but typed wrongly as 1997. Similarly, there is a typographical error at once place at para no.2 in the judgment Ex. IP24/W/1/D3. He admitted that the suit No. 556/2010 was instituted on 14.03.2006. He admitted that this suit was instituted after the acquisition process. He volunteered that the tenancy was terminated on 28.12.2001 by Ex. IP24/W/1/D1. All the facts are noted in the judgment including the deduction of acquired land. He admitted that acquired land portion i.e. 10x12 sq. feet was taken from IP No. 24. He denied that suggestion that the area which was acquired by LAC, he had no connection or concern with that. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land of IP No. 24 had no concern with the suit No. 556/2010.
139. In his cross-examination IPW-1 further deposed that he has seen the copy of Award of LAC No. 2/DC(W)/2006- 2007. He cannot say that in Award No. 2/DC(W)/2006-2007, the name of IP No.1 and 46 in property no. 69/6A exist or not. Certified copy of the said Award is marked as Ex. PX-24/A. He did not remember whether IP No. 46 has independently LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 128/171 demanded any compensation. He denied the suggestion that the portion belonging to IP No. 24 measuring 10x12 sq. feet was sold to his wife Smt. Poonam Virmani. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Poonam Virmani as GPA holder sold the said portion to him after notification. He denied the suggestion that IP No. 24 is entitled for 87% of acquired portion of land measuring 10x12 sq. feet. He denied the suggestion that as per MCD resolution 1294 of 1973 at item no. 100, he is not entitled for any claim of compensation in view of conditions laid in that resolution. This witness has not been cross-examined on behalf of other IPs.
140. IP1W1 Sh. Harish Virmani also appeared in his individual capacity of IP No.1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP1W1/X, in which he almost reiterated the averments made in his claim. He deposed that he rely upon the certified copy of sale deed dated 22.03.1950 as Ex. IP1W1/A (OSR), Certified copy of Sale Deed by DDA dated 17.10.1969 as Ex. IP1W1/B (OSR), Copy of Will dated 1.8.1983 as Ex. IPW1/C (OSR), Death certificate of his father late Sh.Jiwan Lal Virmani as Ex. IP1W1/D, agreement to sell dated 26.03.1992 executed by Sh. Ashok Virmani in his favour as Ex. IP1W1/E (OSR), General Power of Attorney dated 26.3.1992 executed by Sh. Ashok Virmani in favoaur of his favour and in favour of his wife as Ex. IP1W1/F (OSR), Photo copy of Bankers cheque issued by Central Bank of India as Ex. IP1W1/G (Colly) in his affidavit same is hereby de-exhibited and marked as Mark B, Certified copy of the Register of Sh.M.S. Mehta, Notary Public dated 26.03.1992 as Ex. IP1W1/H, registered will dated 26.03.1992 executed by Sh.Ashok Virmani in his favouar as Ex. IP1W1/I (OSR), Copy of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 129/171 letter of No Objections issued by Sh. Ashok Virmani, his wife Nalini Virmani and son Sh. Rahul Virmani to the sale by Ashok Virmani of his 1/3rd share in his favour as Ex. IP1W1/J (Colly) (OSR), Registered Sale Deed dated 08.11.2004 as Ex. IP1W1/K (OSR), Deed of Confirmation dated 14.01.2007 executed by Sh. Ashok Virmani of his 1/3rd share in his favour as Ex. IP1W1/L (OSR). He also rely upon the certified copy of judgment passed by the court of Shri Mahabir Singhal as Ex. IP1W1/M. The computer generated copy from the internet showing the name of the Directors is Ex. IP1W1/N, certificate of Incorporation of Jiwan Industries is Ex. IP46W1/X, Extracts of Minute Book of Jiwan Industry is already exhibited as Ex. IP46W/1/I (OSR) and copy of the lease deed in favour of IPs No. 1 & 2 by IP No. 46 is Ex. IP1W1/O (OSR). He has entered into a compromise with all the IPs except IP No. 5, 35 & 24 i.e Suri Sons, Pooja Rubber and A.K. Narang. His claim is correct. It is pertinent to mention that cross "on behalf of IP No. 5, 35 & 24. Nil, as the ld. Court has disallowed the cross- examination".
141. IP2W1 Ms. Poonam Virmani tendered in evidence her affidavit as Ex. IPW2W1/A, in which she almost reiterated the averments as made in her claim. He deposed that she rely upon the agreement to sell dated 26.03.1992 as Ex. IP2W1/1 (OSR), General Power of Attorney as Ex. IP2W1/2 (OSR), Photo copy of Bankers cheque issued by Central Bank of India as Ex. IP2W1/3 ( Colly) in her affidavit same is hereby de-exhibited and marked as Mark A, Letter certifying no objections to the execution of sale documents as Ex. IP2W1/4 (Colly). She also rely upon the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 08.11.2004 as Ex. IP2W1/5 (OSR), the registered Will LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 130/171 dated 26.3.1992 as Ex. IP2W1/6 (OSR), Copy of the deed of confirmation alongwith Registry of Notary Public are Ex. IP2W1/7 (Colly) (OSR). She also rely upon the Ratification Deed dated 25.08.2010 as Ex. IPW1/8 ( OSR). She has entered into a compromise with all the IPs except IP No. 5, 35 & 24 i.e Suri Sons, Pooja Rubber and A.K. Narang. Her claim is correct. It is pertinent to mention that cross "on behalf of IP No. 5, 35 & 24. Nil, as the ld. Court has disallowed the cross- examination".
142. It is pertinent to mention that during the trial, IP no. 21 also compromised the matter with the IP nos. 1, 2 &
46. On 26.12.2016, statement of Ms. Poonam D/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar record to the effect that she is one of the legal heir of IP No. 21, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Ramesh Automobiles and also have been authorized by the other legal heirs of late Sh.Ramesh Kumar. Copy of the application u/s 151 CPC for bringing the name of legal heirs on record is exhibited as Ex. IP21/1 and application u/o 23 Rule 3 affirming the compromise dated 26.09.2014 entered with IP no. 1, 2 and 46 at the Delhi Mediation Centre, by IP no. 21 is exhibited as Ex. IP21/2 bears her signatures at points A and B. The mediation settlement entered into on 26.09.2014 is exhibited as Ex. IP21/3, which bears her signatures at point A, B and C. She shall remain bound by the terms and conditions specified in the mediation settlement which is already exhibited as Ex. IP21/3 and the amount of compensation may be disbursed as per the contents of the mediation settlement. The same has been explained to her in vernacular.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 131/171
143. Sh. Harish Virmani stated that he is the IP no.1 and one of the Directors in IP No.46 in the present matter. He has compromised the present matter with IP no. 21 in the mediation center. Copy of the same has already been exhibited as Ex. IP21/3 which bears his signatures at point D, E and F. He shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement deed.
144. It is pertinent to mention that Sh. Deepak Devgan vide his statement recorded on 22.02.2017 stated that late Smt. Sita Devi IP No. 20 was his mother who expired on 14.11.2011. He is the LR of Late Smt. Sita Devi. He has compromised the dispute the subject matter of the reference with IP No. 46 He is also the partner of M/s. Edission Electricals. As per the terms compromise has been mentioned in Annexure, which is now exhibited as Ex. IPW20/A. The compromise as well as the application supported with the affidavits have been signed by him and he admit the same to be correct. The application and the affidavits duly signed by him are exhibited as Ex. IP20/B (colly). He has no objection if the entire amount assessed or held payable to IP No. 20 be disbursed to IP No. 46.
Sh. Harish Virmani, Director of IP no. 46 in his statement recorded on 22.02.2017 stated that he has heard the statement of Sh. Deepak Devgan recorded today and he has no objection to the compromise Ex. IPW20/A. The application and affidavits have been signed by him and he has also gone through the contents of Ex. IPW20/B (colly), the same are correct.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 132/171
145. It is further pertinent to mention that Ms.Mehar Suri vide her statement recorded on 22.02.2017 stated that she is LR of IP No. 5 and 35 along with Ms. Sapna Suri, his mother and Mrs. Pooja Manchanda, his paternal Aunt. She has surrendered her share of claim compensation of land acquired by LAC with respect to IP No. 5 and 35 in favour of her mother Ms. Sapna Suri. She undertakes that she will not claim with regard to the compensation entitled in any court or before any other government agencies in future.
146. Mrs. Pooja Manchanda vide her statement recorded on 22.02.2017 stated that she is LR of IP no. 5 and 35 along with Ms. Sapna Suri, his sister in law and Ms. Mehar Suri, her niece. She has surrendered her share of claim compensation of land acquired by LAC with respect to IP no. 5 and 35 in favour of his sister in law, Ms. Sapna Suri. She undertake that she will not claim with regard to the compensation entitled in any court or before any other govt. agencies in future.
147. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal vide his statement recorded on 26.12.2016 stated that he is the proprietor of Sabharwal Photo Centre at Shop no. 19 and partner of M/s. SS Cycle Industries, IP No. 45. He has surrendered his claim for value of structures vide award no. 02/DCW/2006-07 at serial no. 57 for amount of Rs.25,433/- along with his brother Sh.Ravi Raj Sabharwal for Rs.26,475/- at serial no. 79 of the award in favour of Esvee Polymers manufacturing company, IP no.3. He and his brother, Sh. Ravi Raj Sabharwal had not claimed value of structures mentioned above. He and his brother, Sh. Ravi Raj Sabharwal have already submitted their LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 133/171 affidavits along with application of IP no. 3. He and his brother Sh.Ravi Raj Sabharwal will not claim this value of structure and enhancement and interest of value of structures in any form in court of ADJ, High Court and Supreme Court as well as LAC or any other authority for this value of structures mentioned above.
148. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal vide his statement recorded on 15.12.2016 stated that he is the partner of SS Cycles, IP No. 45. He has surrendered his claim for value of structures vide award no. 02/DCW/2006-07 at serial no. 79 for amount of Rs.26,475/- along with his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal for Rs.25,433/- at serial no. 57 of the award in favour of Esvee Polymers manufacturing company, IP No.3. He and his brother, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal had not claimed value of structures mentioned above. He and his brother, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal have already submitted their affidavits along with application of IP No.3. He and his brother, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sabharwal will not claim this value of structure and enhancement and interest of value of structures in any form in court of ADJ, High Court and Supreme Court as well as LAC or any other authority for this value of structures mentioned above.
149. Written submission/arguments filed on behalf of IP No. 5. It is stated that claimant Ms. Sapna Suri is LR of late Mrs. Usha Suri, proprietor of M/s. Surisons Industries and she was listed as IP No. 5 in the present case. IP No. 5 was in possession of 600 sq. yard of land with building and sheds in plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road from 1957 when her father in law started his business as Surisons Industries in partnership of LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 134/171 late seth Jiwan Lal Virmani of Jiwan Industries. It is stated that partnership deed was signed on 27th July, 1957 between Surison Industries and Jiwan Industries duly signed by late Sh. Prem Nath Suri and his brother late Sh. Jugal Kishore Suri, both partners on behalf of Surison Industries and late Sh.Jiwan Lal Virmani as Director Jiwan Industries. This partnership deed is not disputed by the IP nos. 1, 2 and 46 and is on the record as filed by the IP No. 5. The name of partnership firm was kept as Surisons Industries agreed by both.
150. It is further stated that as partnership deed Jiwan Industries provided space area measuring 600 sq. yard and Surisons agreed to provide Finance and manage and control the business. Surisons Industries constructed the building and machinery etc. As per terms, 90% profit will go to Surisons and 10% will go to Jiwan Industries. Minimum assured profit was fixed as Rs.150/- per month. Actually it was a practically sold area on Pagri but as there is no legal sanctity of pagri and thus it was no where mentioned in the partnership deed. The formal/notional amount was fixed Rs.150/- per month as a share of minimum profit. The terms and conditions of the partnership deed itself speak about share of each party and it was just formality between two friends. All investment was made by the IP no. 5 and business started. Surisons paid the profit continuously, as agreed in the partnership deed.
151. It is further stated that the IP no. 5 was in possession of 600 sq.yds. Area on which IP has earlier constructed the structure/building. This fact was never disputed by the contesting IPs as they admitted that building LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 135/171 was constructed by IP No. 5. IP No. 5 got all electricity power connection on his name and also obtained factory license. Landline connection was also obtained in the premises. The copy of landline connection, electricity meter bill and MCD Factory license has been proved by the witness during the evidence and the same are on record.
152. It is further stated that IP No. 5 sub-leased the premises to Mono Industries, Nitisa Enterprises and Puja Rubbers under the intimation to Seth Jiwanlal Virmani who never objected to this fact. All IPs who are the Sub lessee of IP no.5 were paying rent to IP No.5 directly and they got all statutory sanction from the Government which was also never objected by the Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. during the lifetime of Seth Jiwan Lal Virmani and also after 5-6 years.
153. It is further stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 have made compromise with the Sub-lessee of IP No. 5 i.e. IP No. 11 and IP No. 27. IP No. 5 was paying the house tax directly to MCD.
154. It is stated that the LAC has acquired an area of 575 sq. yards vide notification under Section 4, 6 and 17 in the year 2003 and 2004 from plot no. 69/6A from the possession of IP No. 5 and its sub lessees directly. Remaining area of 25 sq. yards was left with the IP No. 5. There is no mention in the partnership deed that lease will not be entitled for compensation in case of acquisition.
155. It is stated that IP nos. 1, 2 and 46 have written letter in the year 1995 to MCD that certain IPs are in possession land on long lease which may be considered as LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 136/171 practically sold and they are liable to pay House tax directly to MCD, which is on court record. The IP no. 1 and 46 have not filed any claim with LAC and the name of IP No. 1 and 46 do not reflects in the list of claimants and evidences for 69/6A which starts from Sr. No. 39 to 80 in Award No. 02/DC (W) 2006-2007. His name reflects only for the property no. 69/3A. It seems that IP no.1 has managed to get his name listed in Naksha Muntajamin as main IP in collusion with LAC staff. The name of IP nos. 1 & 2 have no mention in the list of value of structures because they were not in the possession of any building/structure. This survey was conducted by two Govt. Departments independently for IP in the possession of buildings in acquired land.
156. It is stated that IP No. 46 filed a case against IP no. 5 in 1994 but IP No. 46 Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Has no power to file a court case because the lease agreement of Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Expires in 1984 and the said fact is written on extension of lease agreement of Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dated 24.12.2004, which is on record. IP NO. 46 filed a case against IP Nos. 5, 11 and 27 on the basis of open space and sub tenancies giving false information and srong facts before the court. The case was decided on 12.07.2005 in favour of Jiwan Industries. IP No. 5 filed an appeal against the order which is still sine-die as the IP no. 46 filed another case for recovery of remaining 25 sq. yards of land which was left from acquisition and damages and this case has been withdrawn by IP no. 46 now in the month of August, 2017. The alleged decree passed on 12.07.2005 is nullity because Lt. Governor of Delhi has already passed order/notification dated 02.09.2004, which was published in newspaper LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 137/171 'Hindustan Times' on 23.10.2004. Which means after 23.10.2004, the land in question is a government land and the decree passed on 12.07.2005 is nullity.
157. It is stated that in view of compromise agreement between IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 and IP Nos. 7 and 31, the IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 have filed false cases against the tenants. IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 on one hand filed a case for recovery of 25 sq. yards remaining land on the other hand in the present case they are taking a stand that whole 600 sq. yards area was acquired by the LAC. The report of Local Commissioner appointed by the Court clearly shows that remaining 25 sq. yds. of land was in the possession of IP No.5, which is on record. Now in 2017, IP No. 46 has withdrawn his case of damages falsely stating in the court that he has got back the possession of remaining 25 sq. yards land from Mrs. Sapna Suri through some compromise while there is no compromise ever done.
158. It is further stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 have compromise with IP no.21 on 75% to IP no.21 and 25% to IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 basis while IP no. 21 has lost his tenancy case in the court which is on the record of court. It means IP no.5 is entitled minimum 75% compensation of land measuring 575 sq. yards. IP No. 5 is entitled for 87% of compensation along with value of structure of IP No. 11 and 27 because they are sub lessee/ tenant of IP No. 5.
159. It is stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 are not entitled for any claim on the ground that the total area of plot no. 69 was 12.41 Acres of land which was purchased by Seth Jiwan Lal Virmani in 1950 from Seth Gujjarmal Modi. As per LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 138/171 the registry from DDA in 1969, Industrial area was to be developed by the purchaser to boost the industry but no industrial area was developed in clear violation of condition of DDA document. To save the big area from the Land Ceiling Ac, owner applied for sub division of Plot in 6 parts. The MCD Standing Committee approved the sub-division of plot no. 69 vide resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 item no. 100 on certain terms and conditions. One of the condition being "the land required for the widening of the Najafgarh Road Patel Road and Rama Road plans free of Cost shall be left as per approved alignment" (Ex. IP-24/WP5). Applicant/owner of land i.e. father of IP no.1 late Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani gave an undertaking that he would abide by all terms and conditions laid down in the resolution.
160. It is further stated that late Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani submitted a layout plan indicating the land area to be surrendered free of cost for the purpose of road widening and also reproduced the conditions imposed by the Standing Committee in its resolution. Copy of site plan along with undertaking duly signed by late Sh.Jiwan Lal Virmani is annexed with the Status Report of MCD dated 29.04.2010. As per the effect of this resolution the land marked in the undertaking site plan to be left free of cost for the purpose of widening of road vested with the MCD immediately and the IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 have no right to claim any compensation as they drive their right from the person by way of will, who gave the undertaking and got benefit of the resolution. The owner did not comply with the other condition as it is well settled law that when one condition of any agreement/undertaking is applicable, the all other conditions are also automatically become effective in Toto.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 139/171
161. It is further stated that under the conditions of land acquired vest with the Govt. and compensation to the lease/persons doing business on the land drives the rights owner due to law of adverse possession and easement rights. They are real victim of circumstances whose business ruined and bread and butter snatched due to acquisition. The title of ownership of IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 is doubtful and not established by the IP as per direction of the court and additional issue no.1A framed by this court. IP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed claim on the basis of registered sale deed dated 08.11.2004 which is registered after the acquisition process was complete. As per law the sale of acquired land become illegal as the same becomes government property. They intentionally and knowingly mentioned the wrong date in their claim as 8.1.2004 to hide the actual date to mislead the court. These sale deeds were executed by IP Nos. 1 & 2 mutually to other on the basis of GPAs of year 1992 said to be executed by the brothers of IP no.1 in favour of IP Nos. 1 & 2. Sh.Ashok Kumar, brother of the IP no. 1 who is NRI and settled in Canda has challenged the GPA and registered sale deed to be wrong and a case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
162. It is further stated that LAC in his report dated 30.12.2004 has confirmed that Sh. Ashok Virmai is the owner of land of 1/3 share and IP no. 2 is not owner. LAC report is on court record. It is stated that due to collusion/conspiracy with MCD, owner played the role to hide the fact of standing committee resolution now wanting to extract illegally several crores from the government while legally he is not entitle to any claim. Reference with respect to IP no. 46 was not sent by the LAC to the court but was impleaded as IP on the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 140/171 application of IP no. 45 later on dated 22.08.2008. IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 tried to amend their claim but their application under Order 6 Rule 17 was dismissed by the court on 07.05.2010 and review application was dismissed on 02.08.2010.
163. Ld. Counsel for the IP Nos. 5 & 35 also referred to some portions of cross-examination of Sh. Harish Virmni. It is stated that IP Nos. 1 and 2 individually claims to be the owner of the property in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd but they have not brought any documents, evidence on record that they are paying house tax of the property in question to the MCD.
164. It is further stated that IP No. 5 Mrs. Usha Suri, mother in law and Jiwan Lal Suri died during the pendency of trial and later on her husband Sh.Atul Suri becomes the LR who also died in the year 2014 in young age. Now there is no male adult member in the family to ear livelihood.
165. Ld. Counsel referred to the judgments of 'UOI vs. Ajit Singh & Others' AIR 1987 Delhi; 1987 (12) DRJ 104 of Delhi High Court in Civil Regular Ist Appeal No. 378 of 1971 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami and also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Inder Parshad vs. UOI' decided on 13.01.1994 by Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon'ble Mr. Justie N. Venkatachala.
166. It is stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 are not morally and legally entitled to file or ask any compensation for the area acquired by the LAC and should not get a single penny. On the other hand, IP no. 5 is entitled for 87% of compensation of entire 575 sq. yards of land acquired from LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 141/171 the possession of IP No. 5, IP no. 11 and IP No. 27 being owner of land.
167. Written submission/arguments also filed on behalf of IP No. 24. It is stated that claimant Sh. Ashok Kumar Narang, proprietor of M/s. A.K. Industries is IP No. 24 in the present case and his name has been sent by the LAC and he has filed the claim for compensation. It is stated that IP no. 24 was in possession of constructed premises on plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road from 1968 when he was doing his business with his brother Sh. Sulakhan Kumar Narang. He has filed copy of Income Tax Notice for the assessment year 1972-73.
168. It is stated that due to differences, he separated his business from his brother and established the firm M/s.A.K. Industries (India) on the same premises i.e. 69/6A (new number after division of plot no. 69) and entered into separate new lease deed with M/s. Jiwan Industries for the area 14.9 x 10.7 and 21x10 sq. feet in 1977. Actually it was a practically sold area on Pagri but as there is no legal sanctity of pagri and only mutual trust, it was no where mentioned in the lease deed. The lease rent was fixed as Rs.58/- per month. The copy of the lease deed is on record as Ex. IP- 24/W-1/A.
169. It is stated that IP was in possession of 14.9x10.7 and 21x10 sq. feet with constructed structure at the time of lease but lessor knowingly written the open space in order to avoid any action from MCD resolution on the basis of which lessor was allowed to sub-divide the plot no. 69 in six parts. IP No. 24 got all mandatory sanctions to run industry which LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 142/171 includes Electricity power connection, Factory license and Landline connection. The copy of landline connection, electricity meter bill and MCD factory license has been proved by the witness came from NDPL and MCD during the evidence. IP No. 24 was regularly paying the lease rent as agreed and doing his business till year 2011 in remaining portion of building. The LAC vide above mentioned award acquired an area of 10x12 sq. feet from the building under the possession of IP no. 24 and possession was taken by LAC directly from the IP no. 24. IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 have admitted in the cross-examination that building was constructed by IP NO. 24 and LAC took over the possession 10x12 square feet directly from IP No. 24.
170. It is further stated that the business of the IP was badly affected due to acquisition process. No alternate plot/site was provided by the Government to run the business. There is no mention in the lease deed that lessee will not be entitled for compensation in case of acquisition. The IP is entitled for 87% of compensation along with value of structure of the area 10x12 sq. feet acquired by the LAC.
171. It is further stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 have compromised with IP no.21 on 75% to IP no.21 and 25% to IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 basis while IP no. 21 has lost his tenancy case in the court which is on the record of court. IP No. 1 and 46 have not filed any claim with LAC and the name of IP Nos. 1 and 46 do not reflects in the list of claimants and evidences for 69/6A which starts from Sr. No. 39 to 80 in Award No. 02/DC(W)2006-2007 which is marked as Ex. PX-24/A. His name reflects only for the property no. 69/3A. It seems that LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 143/171 IP no.1 has managed to get his name listed in Naksha Muntajamin as main IP in collusion with LAC staff.
172. Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 24 stated that IP Nos. 1, 2 & 46 are not entitled for any claim and in this regard has taken the exactly same grounds as taken in the written submission/arguments filed on behalf of the IP No. 5 which are mentioned above in detail, so same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
173. Written submissions/ arguments also filed on behalf of IP No. 35. It is stated that claimant Ms. Sapna Suri is LR of late Jugal Kishore Suri, sole proprietor of M/s. Puja Rubber Industries who is listed as IP No. 35 in the present case and she has filed the claim for compensation for land acquired by LAC measuring 136.62 sq. mts. The IP was in possession of constructed commercial three sheds measuring 4.4x3.7 sq. meter, 13.5x4 sq. meters and 10.7x6.2 sq. mts on the total area of 136.62 sq. meter land and running the business of rubber processing with prior permission and sanctions from the statutory authorities from 1987 onwards in freehold plot no. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road from 1986 as a sub lessee of M/s. Surisons Industries who is a sub lessee of Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. There were two other sub lessee of Surison Industries namely Mono Industries IP 27 and Nitisha Enterprises IP -11 and IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 have compromised with IP Nos. 11 and 27 but IP No. 35 has not compromised.
174. It is further stated that IP No. 35 got all mandatory sanctions to run industry which includes Electricity power connection, Factory license and Landline connection. The LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 144/171 copy of landline connection, electricity meter bill and MCD factory license has been proved by the witness during the evidence. IP No. 35 was regularly paying the lease rent as agreed and doing his business till the possession of premises was handed over to LAC in 2005.
175. It is stated that IP no. 5 also sub-leased some part of his premises to Mono Industries, Nitisa Enterprises IP No. 27 and IP No. 11 and Puja Rubbers Industries, claimant under the intimation to Seth Jiwanlal Virmani who never objected to this fact. All IPs who are the Sub-lessee of IP no.5 were paying rent to IP no.5 directly and were having all prior sanctions and permission from the Government Authorities such as Factory license, commercial electric connection and landline telephone in the name of Puja Rubber Industries.
176. It is further stated that IP no. 46 filed a case against IP no. 5, 11 and 27 in 1994 on the basis of open space giving false information and wrong facts before the Court. IP no. 35 was not a party to the suit hence has nothing to do with the suit in question.
177. It is pertinent to mention that rest of the written submissions/ arguments filed on behalf of the IP no. 35 are exactly the same as filed on behalf of the IP no. 5 and mentioned in detail above, therefore, they are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
178. Additional written submissions/arguments also filed on behalf of IP Nos. 5, 35 and 24. It is stated that during the additional evidence of IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 on 19.08.2017 LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 145/171 has several discrepancies and IP Nos. 1 and 2 have tried to improve their original pleading which should not been allowed as the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is still deferred for the conditions mentioned in order dated 07.05.2010 and 02.08.2010 of this court. The exhibition of these documents is clear violation of the basic principal of law that evidence should not go beyond pleadings. Ld. Counsel has given the details of documents exhibited on 19.08.2017. It is stated that all the documents referred along with other documents exhibited during the evidence of IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 which are not part of pleading should not be read as evidence keeping in view of the Apex Court judgments.
179. Written synopsis/arguments also filed on behalf of IP Nos. 33 and 34. It is stated that the applicant are partners/proprietor of IP No. 33 and 34 and joint owner of part of property no. 69/6A, Najafgarh, Delhi in respect of the aforesaid matter. It is stated that owner of IP no. 33 and 34 namely, Sh. Kasturi Lal Makkar, Sh. Chander Mohan Makkar and Sh. Ajay Makkar have already purchased a land/property by way of Sale Deed dated 07.01.1999 bearing registration no. 130 in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 9158 on page 138 to 147 dated 07.01.1999 and another sale deed dated 12.10.1999 bearing registration no. 7197, Additional Book no. I, Volume No. 9357 page no. 82-89 dated 12.10.1999 and the portion of the said property/land along with super-structure i.e. constructed portion has already been acquired by the government department for widening of the road near Moti Nagar red-light at Najafgarh Industrial Area and till date they have not received proper and full compensation from the Revenue Department/ UOI.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 146/171
180. It is further stated that some IPs have already been expired and whose legal representatives are still not substituted in the array of the memo of parties. Perusal of judicial record shows that previously some legal heirs have also appeared before this Court but their names have not been substituted as legal heirs of the deceased IPs till now and without substitution of their names in the array of memo of parties, it is not legal to decide the claim petition finally. It is further stated that for getting the huge/excess compensation out of term, the IP nos. 1, 2 and 46 have already filed false and fabricated documents, applications, claims, affidavits & evidences also before this Court, Municipal Corporation, Revenue Department, Sub Registrar Offices etc.
181. It is further stated that the IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 claimed to be the actual owner and in possession of the whole land out of which some land had been acquired by the government for widening the road as stated in their claim petition but there are number of documents, proof, facts, statements, orders, application and affidavits on record which show that there are serious contradictions and improvements made by the IP No. 1, 2 and 46 including Sh.Harish Virmani & Smt. Poonam Virmani individually and as Directors of the IP No. 46 also. IP No. 1 and 2 Sh. Harish Virmani and Smt.Poonam Virmani have played serious fraud against this Court, Delhi Revenue Department, Municipal Corporation and other departments intentionally with intention to get huge & excess amount of compensation in respect of acquired land in question by way of playing fraud with the Court intentionally as they are filing self contradictory affidavits, applications, LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 147/171 statements and false & fabricated and self contradictory evidences before this Court which amounts to perjury and for the same this Court has every right to initiate criminal proceedings against the wrong doer/ culprit/ accused who are the IP No. 1, 2 and 46 in the present matter.
182. It is further stated that IP no. 1, 2 and 46 had already sold a portion of land/ premises measuring 128 sq. yds. out of said land/plot bearing no. 69/6-A which is the part of acquired land in question to Sh. Chander Mohan Makkar and Sh. Ajay Makkar, IP No. 33 and 34, by way of registered sale deed dated 07.01.1999 as detailed above. There are number of other sale deeds on record and out of record where the said IP no. 1, 2 and 46 have already sold out the number of portion of the part of said land bearing no. 69/6A which is the part of the acquired land and the matter of disbursement of compensation between the IPs.
183. It is stated that mostly all the IPs no. 3 to 45 had given the possession of their respective land to the LAC directly as they were in possession of the same at that time. IPs no. 1, 2 and 46 are adamant to demand relief of illegal and excess amount of compensation by way of their already filed documents, affidavits & evidences also before this Court with intention to mislead this Court and so this Court would have taken criminal actions against the defaulting party i.e. Sh. Harish Virmani and Smt. Poonam Virmani, the IPs no. 1, 2 and 46.
184. It is pertinent to mention that rest of the written submission/ arguments of IP No. 33 and 34 pertains to alleged LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 148/171 manipulation, fabrication, perjury, forgery etc. committed by IP No. 1, 2 and 46, for which they have already filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and same has been registered separately. So these written submissions/ arguments will be considered while deciding the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
185. Written submissions also filed on behalf of IP nos. 1, 2 and 46. It is stated that the IP no. 46 was the landlord and IP nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the land measuring 2222.25 sqm which was acquired vide award no. 2/DC (W)/2006-2007. IP no. 5 claimed himself to be the owner of about 600 sq. yds. On the basis that there was a partnership between IP no. 5 and 46 which was entered into in the year 1957. The land was to be provided by IP no. 46 and the plant and machinery and building was to be constructed by IP no.
5. The IP no. 5 came in possession of an open plot whereupon he raised construction thereon and started doing the business. The partnership continued for a short time. Thereafter, he became a tenant @ Rs.160/- per month payable to IP No. 46. Since there was a dispute between IP no. 5 and 46 so a suit for ejectment was filed seeking ejectment of IP 5 from 600 sq. yds. The said suit was filed on 05.01.1994. The said suit ws tried and adjudicated upon by the court of Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Commercial Civil Judge, titled as 'Jeewan Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suri son Industries; Ms. Usha Suri, J.K. Suri; Imperial Enterprises; Mono Industries and Nitisha Enterprises'. The said suit was for ejectment and for recovery of possession and recovery of Rs.160/- as damages.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 149/171
186. It is stated that the said suit was decreed by the court of Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pas decree to the effect, "the decree for ejectment and recovery of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with regard to open space measuring 600 sq. yds. in red colour in the site plan attached confirming part of property no. 69, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The defendants are directed to remove the super structure on the above peace of land and to deliver vacant possession of the said open space (suit property) within a period of two months from passing of the judgment. Further a decree for damages @ Rs.160/- per month w.e.f. 23.11.1993 till vacation of the suit property is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff."
187. It is further stated that against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed by IP no. 5 only and the other defendants conceded to the decree. In the appeal filed by IP no. 5, IP no. 5 prayed for stay of execution of the decree, however that stay was a conditional one with the condition that IP No. 5 shall deposit the decreetal amount of damages in court within a period of one month. However, IP No. 5 failed to deposit the amount as directed by the appellate court so there was no stay operating and the appeal was got stayed by the IP no.5 sine die. The said appeal has not been revied till date and the judgment and decree passed by Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan, Commercial Civil Judge remained unchanged. Since IP no. 5 was held to be a tenant only with respect to open piece of land so he had no protection under LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 150/171 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Since the decree for ejectment had already been passed so IP No. 5 had lost all rights, title and interest in the acquired land. IP No. 5 has stated in claim that only 575 sq. yds. land has been acquired and he continue to be in possession of 25 sq. yds. This stand is totally untenable in as much as there is finding of the competent court of jurisdiction.
188. It is further stated that the tenancy of IP No. 5 with respect to open plot was duly terminated by serving legal notice dated 20.10.1993 Ex. IP5W1/2. The said notice is admitted by IP No.5. IP no. 5 during continuance of his tenancy has sublet, assigned and parted with certain portion of IP no. 27 Mono Industries, IP No. 11 Nitish Enterprises, however, those sub tenants have already compromise their dispute with the IP nos. 1, 2 and 46. The IP no. 5 has claimed 755 of compensation being a tenant, however, IP no. 5 is not entitled to any amount of compensation as his tenancy was terminated and he remained in illegal and unauthorised possession of 100 sq. yds. and thereafter upon filing of the suit for recovery of possession etc., a decree was also passed in favour of IP No. 46. The claim of IP no. 5 is liable to be rejected.
189. It is further stated that Sh. Jugal Kishore Suri has been taking different stand, somewhere he says that he is proprietor of IP No. 5 Suri Son Industries and somewhere he says that he is proprietor of IP No. 35. It is stated that the case of IP No. 35 Puja Rubber represented through its proprietor Sh. J.K. Suri that he was the sub tenant of IP no. 5 and was running his independent business under the name LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 151/171 and style of Puja Rubber is totally false and manipulated. IP No. 35 was an illegal sub tenant and does not have any right, title or interest of any nature in the acquired land. IP No. 35 was also joined as defendant no.3 in the above mentioned suit decided by Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Commercial Civil Judge,Delhi. No rights of IP no. 35 were recognized in the judgment passed by the court and an ejectment decree was passed against IP no. 35 also. IP No. 35 has also not challenged the said judgment and decree and judgment against IP no. 35 has attained finality. Thus IP No. 35 is not entitled to any compensation and the claim of IP no. 35 is liable to be rejected.
190. It is further stated that IP No. 24 Sh. A. K. Narang claims himself to be the tenant. On 28.12.2001 the tenancy of Sh. A.K. Narang was terminated and he also sent a reply on 02.01.2002 in respect to the notice. Sh. A.K. Narang, IP No. 24 did not vacate the ope space let out to him so suit for ejectment was filed by IP no. 46 on 14.03.2006. The said suit was decreed on 22.11.2010 on an application moved by IP no. 46 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Possession was also taken by the court order through the court bailiff. IP no. 24 carried an appeal on 07.01.2012 which was dismissed by the court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur on 08.02.2013 and decree for damages was also passed by Ms. Snigdha Sarwaria. Therefore, IP no. 24 also had no right, title or interest of any nature in the acquired land as his tenancy has been terminated much prior to initiation of the acquisition proceedings and the notice is admitted by IP no. 24. The status of IP no. 24 after the termination of tenancy was that of a tress passer and unauthorized occupant thus he is not entitled to any compensation.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 152/171
191. I have heard Sh. Deepak Khosla, Counsel for IP No. 1, 2 and 46; Sh. R.K.Singh, Counsel for IP Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42, 44 and 45; proxy Counsel for Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Counsel for the IP Nos. 6, 9, 15, 25, 27, 29, 36, 38, 39, 40; Sh. Arvind Kumar, Counsel for IP Nos. 33 and 34. I have also perused the record including written arguments filed on behalf of IPs.
192. IP No. 5 M/s. Surisons Industries is claiming 87% of compensation for land measuring 1800 sq. ft. stated to be given on rent to M/s. Mono Industries, 66 sq. yards to M/s. Nitisha Industries and 136.5 sq. yards to M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries. IP No.5 claimed that 25 sq. yards is still in the possession of the claimant. However, IP No. 46 in the reply contended that the claimant/IP No. 5 M/s. Surisons Industries concealed the material facts from the court that there is a suit for eviction filed and decreed on 12.07.2005 by the court of Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Ld. Civil Judge. The partnership firm M/s.Surisons Industries was changed into proprietorship firm in the name of Ms. Usha Suri. As a result, Sh. Jugal Kishore left with no right, title or possession of 600 sq. yards and these facts are admitted by Ms. Usha Suri in Civil Suit No. 483/80, therefore, there is no privity and tenancy existed. The tenancy of M/s. Surisons was terminated by M/s. Jiwan Industries vide registered notice dated 20.10.1993. Sh. Harish Virmani and Ms.Poonam Virmani are the paramount lessors.
193. I have also gone through the evidence led by on behalf of IP No.5 i.e. IP5W1 Sh. Atul Suri. In the cross- examination he admitted that tenancy was month to month basis. He admitted that tenancy was terminated vide notice LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 153/171 dated 20.10.1993 of M/s.Surisons Industries and admitted the termination of tenancy vide notice Ex. IP5W1/2. He admitted the filing of suit for possession by M/s. Jiwan Industries and same was decreed vide judgment dated 12.07.2005. He admitted the certified copy Ex. IP5W1/3. He admitted that decreetal amount has not been deposited. He also admitted the site plan Ex. IP5W1/5 and the statement Ex. IP5W1/4. However, he denied the knowledge of the fact that M/s. Surisons Industries not authorized to create sub tenancy. He admitted that he is not a purchaser and no sale deed executed by M/s. Jiwan Industries. He explained in volunteer statement that the possession of the land was taken from them and not from M/s. Jiwan Industries. However, no document proved to this effect. After going through the pleadings and deposition of parties, in my considered opinion IP No. 5 M/s. Surisons Industries failed to prove the entitlement of compensation to the extent of 1800 sq. yds.
194. IP No. 21 M/s. Ramesh Automobiles initially contesting the case and later on compromised the matter and statements were recorded in this respect on 26.12.2016. Therefore, IP No. 21 M/s. Ramesh Automobiles through its LRs would be entitled to 75% of the total amount of compensation pertaining to area ad-measuring 6.96 sq. meter along with proportionate interest in property no. 69/6A, Patel Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi along with along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.21.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 154/171
195. IP No. 24 M/s. A. Kay Industries (India) claimed 87% of compensation being tenant in possession of built up property measuring 21' x 10 ½' , a part of which has been acquired being an old tenant and still in possession of the area of 9' x 10 ½'. It means the acquired area along with structure is 12' x 10 ½' . In order to prove the case, Sh.Ashok Kumar Narang, proprietor of IP No. 24 appeared in the witness box and proved lease deed dated 01.01.1977 as Ex. IP24W1/A, copy of status report of MCD as Ex. IP24/W-1/H and photocopies of rent receipts pertaining to year 1978, 1979, 1994 as Ex. IP24/W-1/E-1 to E-3 and other documents mentioned in the above detailed examination. In the detailed cross-examination, he admitted that IP 46 has filed as suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit titled as 'Jiwan Industries vs. Ashok Kumr Narang'. He admitted that he has received the legal notice dated 28.11.2001 Ex. IP24W1/D1 regarding termination of tenancy and he has sent a reply Ex. IP24W1/D2. He deposed that he is not aware of decree of damages to the tune of Rs.3, 79, 176/-. However, he admitted the copy of judgment of Ms. Sanigda Sarvaria, Ld. Civil Judge as Ex. IP24W1/D3. He denied the knowledge of filing of appeal against the said order and pending before Ld. ADJ Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur. He also denied that he has no knowledge that the said appeal was dismissed on 07.01.2011. However, certified copy proved on record as Ex. IP24W1/D4. He also denied that the possession of four rooms was taken by the Bailiff as per the order. However, he admitted his signature on that document Ex. IP24W1/D5. In my considered opinion, IP No. 46 had legally taken the possession as per the above judgment of the civil court as well as appellate court. He admitted that no damages paid by him awarded by the LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 155/171 Civil court to the tune of Rs.3,79, 176/- to IP No. 46. In my considered opinion, IP No. 24 M/s. A. Kay Industries (India) has no right to get the compensation for acquired land to the tune of 12' x 10 ½' as claimed.
196. IP No. 35 M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries filed claim through its proprietor Sh. Jugal Kishore Suri, who is claiming 85% of compensation of industrial estate measuring 4 x 3.7 sq. meters, 13.5 x 4 sq. meters and 10.7 x 6.2 sq. meters, total measuring 136.62 sq. meters. It is claimed that a business of rubber processing on job work basis was done under the name and style of M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries. In order to prove the claim, one Sh.Sanjesh Suri appeared in witness box, whose testimony has been discussed above in detail. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot produce any document to show that IP No. 5 M/s. Pooja Rubber Industries was a sub tenant of IP No. 5 M/s. Surisons Industries. He also not able to depose about the super structure which was allegedly subletted to IP No. 35. However, he admitted that Sh. Umesh Suri filed the suit no. 483/80 against MCD. He had shown ignorance to Ex. IPW1/6 where Ms. Usha Suri mentioned the area. He admitted that M/s. Surisons Industries was a partnership of M/s. Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. He denied awareness of a suit filed against Surisons Industries bearing No. 12/94 decided by Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Ld. ADJ. However, Ld. Counsel for IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 has filed certified copy of that suit and the appeal arising thereof.
197. I have gone through the certified copy available on record. Certified copy is already exhibited as Ex. IP5W3. In LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 156/171 this case M/s. Surisons Industries and Ms. Usha Suri were the parties. The decree of ejectment and recovery of possession was passed in favour of plaintiff M/s. Jiwan Industries for open space measuring 600 sq. yds. and defendants were also directed to remove the super structure and till the vacant possession, damages were also awarded @ Rs.160/- per month w.e.f. 23.11.1993. In my considered opinion IP No. 5 when has no right, title, interest in respect of the acquired land as claimed by IP No. 35, then there is no question of any right as a sub tenant to IP No. 35. In my considered opinion, IP No. 35 is also not entitled to any compensation in respect of industrial estate measuring 4 x 3.7 sq. meters, 13.5 x 4 sq. meters and 10.7 x 6.2 sq. meters, total measuring 136.62 sq. meters.
RELIEF:
198. In view of the overall discussion, the IPs who are entitled for compensation in respect of their respective shares are detailed as under:
Sl. IP number Area of Amount in % Remarks
No. and Name respective IP in
the property
No.69/6A, Patel
Road/ Najafgarh
Road, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
1. IP No. 3 (i) 70.25 sq. meter (i)60% of 20% Vide
M/s. Esvee on ground floor and and Mediation
Agreement
Polymers (ii) 40.47sq. Meter (ii) 40% of dated
on first floor 20% of total 26.09.2014,
compensation it is agreed
along with that claim of
IP 3 and
compensation compromise
pertaining to agreement
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 157/171
structures of IP 3 is for
which has a total area
of 106.90
been sqr. Mtrs. IP
assessed in No. 3 will
the name of not claim
IP No.3. any amount
over and
above the
stated ratio
and
application
qua 70.25
sq. meter in
the ground
floor. IP No.
1, 2 & 46
will have no
objection to
the
alternative
plot as per
the area ad-
measuring
106.90 sq.
meter.
As per order
dated
14.10.2017
the
application of
IP No.3 for
claiming
compensation
of ground
floor area of
36.395 sq.
mtrs. of M/s.
Gargson Auto
Plast/IP No.17
as per
compromise
dated
20.04.2010
was allowed.
Partners of
IP No. 45
Sh.Ravi Dass
Sabarwal
vide
statement
dated
15.12.2016
and
Sh.Ashok
Kumar
Sabbarwal
vide
statement
dated
26.12.2016
relinquished
the value of
structure
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 158/171
i.e.
Rs.26,475/-
and
Rs.25,433/-
in favour of
IP No.3
2. IP No.4 34 sq. meter 20% of total
M/s. Hind amount of
Electronic compensation
Industries along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.4.
3. IP No.6 10.86 sq. meter 10 % of total
Sh. Jaspal amount of
Singh compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.6.
4. IP No.7 12.5 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Cecon amount of
Engineers compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.7.
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 159/171
5. IP No.8 9.25 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Bright amount of
Sharpening compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.8.
6. IP No. 9 9.3 sq. meter 10 % of total
Smt. Laxmi amount of
Devi compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.9.
7. IP No. 10 18 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. amount of
Bhawana compensation
Sales along with
Corporation proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.10.
8. IP No. 11 55 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Nitisha amount of
Enterprises compensation
along with
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 160/171
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.11.
9. IP No. 12 (i) 12.77 sq. meter (i) 20 % of
M/s. Goel (ii) 10.25 sq. meter total amount
Bros. on first floor of
compensation
and
(ii) 10 % of
total amount
of
compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.12.
10. IP No. 13 (i) 24 sq. meter on (i) 10 % of
M/s. Asha ground floor total amount
Deep of
(ii).6.66 sq. meter compensation
on first floor (ii) 10 % of
total amount
of
compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 161/171
assessed in
the name of
IP No.13.
11. IP No. 14 (i) 29.70 sq. meter (i) 75% of
M/s. Mec total amount
Engineering (ii) 21.82 sq. meter of
Corporation compensation
(ii) 10%
of total
amount of
compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.14.
12. IP No. 15 12.60 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s.Thomson amount of
& Thomson compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.15.
13. IP No. 16 12.6 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Ahuja amount of
Stationers & compensation
Supplier along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 162/171 been assessed in the name of IP No.16.
14. IP No. 17 26.54 sq. meter on 40 % of 20% As per order dated M/s. Gargson first floor of total 14.10.2017 Auto Plast amount of the compensation application of IP No.3 for along with claiming proportionate compensation of ground floor interest along area of 36.395 with sq. mtrs. of compensation M/s. Gargson Auto Plast/IP pertaining to No.17 as per structures compromise which has dated 20.04.2010 been was allowed.
assessed in
the name of
IP No.17.
15. IP No. 18 17 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Amrik amount of
Engineering compensation
Works along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.18,
16. IP No. 20 100.33 sq. meter 17.5 % of Vide
M/s. Edison total amount statement
dated
Electricals of 22.02.2017
compensation IP No. 20
along with relinquished
proportionate their right in
favour of IP
interest along No.46.
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 163/171
the name of
IP No.20.
17. IP No. 21 6.96 sq. meter 75% of total
M/s. Ramesh amount of
Automobiles compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.21.
18. IP No. 22 6.27 sq. meter 20% of total
M/s. ASVK amount of
Chit Fund Pvt. compensation
Ltd. along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.22.
19. IP No. 23 (i) 35.58 sq. mtrs. (i) 60% of
M/s. Divya 20% and
Automats (ii) 41.66 sq. mtrs. (ii) 40% of
20% of total
amount of
compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 164/171
IP No.23.
20. IP No. 25 4.00 sq. meter 10 % of total
M/s. Paul amount of
Welding compensation
Works along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.25.
21. IP No. 26 7.40 sq. meter 75 % of total
M/s. Bombay amount of
Madras Good compensation
Carriers along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.26.
22. IP No. 27 167.5 sq. meter on 10 % of total
M/s. Mono the ground floor amount of
Industries compensation
along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been
assessed in
the name of
IP No.27.
23. IP No. 28 4.43 sq. meter 40% of 20%
M/s. S.K. of total
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 165/171 Metal & Wires amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.28.
24. IP No. 29 12.06 sq. meter 10 % of total Smt. Parmila amount of Devi compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.29.
25. IP No. 31 (i) 10.41 sq. yards (i) 5 % of total M/s. Agro at ground floor amount of Heat (ii) 20.83 sq. yards compensation Engineers at first floor
(ii) 5% of total amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.31.
26. IP No. 32 69.68 sq. meter 40% of 20% LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 166/171 M/s. Nisha of total Cables amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.32.
27. IP No. 34 (i) 147.20 sq. meter (i) 60% of M/s. Popular on the ground floor 20% of total Rubber (ii) 103.24 sq. amount of Industries meter on first floor compensation
(ii) 40% of 20% of total amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.34.
28. IP No. 37 9.3 sq. meter 10 % of total M/s. Bachan amount of Pan Bhandar compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 167/171 the name of IP No.37.
29. IP No. 38 27 sq. meter 10% of total M/s. Space amount of Conditioning compensation Corporation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.38.
30. IP No. 39 (i) 175.01 sq. meter (i) 60% of M/s. Surisons on the ground floor 20% of the Enterprises (ii) 41.75 sq. meter total amount on the first floor of compensation
(ii) 40% of 20% of total amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.39.
31. IP No. 40 5 sq. meter 10% of total M/s. Pankaj amount of Tea Stall compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 168/171 which has been assessed in the name of IP No.40.
32. IP No. 41 14.90 sq. meter 60% of 20% M/s. Shri Ram of total Engineering amount of Works compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.41.
33. IP No. 43 10.84 sq. meter 75% of total M/s. Veekay amount of Industries compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No.43.
34. IP No. 44 10.00 sq. meter 20% of total M/s. Asha amount of Deep compensation Industries along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 169/171 the name of IP No.44.
35. IP No. 45 140.41 sq. meter (ii) 40% of Sh.Sanjesh M/s. S.S. on the first floor 20% of total Suri will be entitled to Cycle amount of 50% of the Industries compensation amount of along with compensatio proportionate n, Sh.Ravi Raj interest along Sabharwal with would be compensation entitled to pertaining to 17% of the structures amount of compensatio which has n, Sh.Ashok been Kumar assessed in Sabharwal the name of and Ms.Anita IP No.45.
Sabharwal
would be
entitled to
16.5% each
in the above
stated ratio
out of the
total area
ad-
measuring
140.41 sq.
meter.
Partners of
IP No. 45
Sh.Ravi Dass
Sabarwal
vide
statement
dated
15.12.2016
and
Sh.Ashok
Kumar
Sabbarwal
vide
statement
dated
26.12.2016
relinquished
the value of
structure
i.e.
Rs.26,475/-
and
Rs.25,433/-
in favour of
IP No.3
LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 170/171
199. All the IPs except IP Nos. 7 & 31, who have moved the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC have compromised the matter without prejudice to their rights.
200. IP No. 36 vide statement dated 29.11.2017 relinquished his right in favour of IP No. 3. IP No. 19, IP No. 33 and IP No. 42 withdraw their claims as per order and statement dated 02.02.2013. IP No. 30 proceeded ex-parte on 05.05.2009.
201. IP Nos. 5, 24 and 35 are not entitled to any compensation as per their respective portion of land and super-structure. However, IP Nos. 1, 2 and 46 are entitled to the compensation for the said portion of land.
202. The compensation which has not been apportioned to the IPs out of the total amount of compensation, be sent back to LAC (West).
203. The reference is answered accordingly.
204. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
205. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 14th December, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 14.12.2017 LAC No. 10A/10/07 Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Ors. 171/171