Delhi District Court
Lac No. 3A/12 Union Of India (Mundka) vs . The Bdo & Others 1/7 on 20 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 3A/12
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0333142012
Union of India
versus
1. The BDO (Gram Sabha Mundka)
O/o BDO, Nangloi, Delhi
2. Sh. Gurucharan Singh
S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh
3. Sh. Harvinder Singh
S/o Sh. Gurucharan Singh
Both R/o C-24, Vishal Enclave,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027
Award No. : 13/DC(W)/2006-07
Village : MUNDKA
Date of Award : 31.05.2007
Date of institution of the case : 11.07.2012
Date of reserving of judgment : 12.02.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.02.2016
(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. 13/DCW/2006-07, Village Mundka in regard to Khasra no. 64//16 min (0-10), 17/1 (1-6) as per enclosed Naksha Muntzamim along with compensation LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 1/7 of Rs.9,10,826/-. The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons. IP No. 1, Gram Sabha and IP No. 2 Shri Gurucharan Singh and IP No. 3 Sh. Harvinder Singh.
3. As per order dated 11.07.2012, the cheque of Rs.9,10,826/- was deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in fixed deposit with instructions to renew the same on year to year basis till further orders.
4. IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha filed claim. In brief, the facts are stated that the Gaon Sabha is Bhumidhar/owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 64/17 (1-4) situated within the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the acquired land vested into Gaob Sabha vide orders/proceedings of the concerned SDM on finding violation of the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and being used by Gaon Sabha thereafter. No other persons has any right, title or interest on the acquired land. It is further stated that the possession of the land in question has been taken over from the Gaon Saha after acquisition by the Government. It is stated that the Gaon Sabha being the owner of the land in question is rightful owner to get the amount of compensation as per Rules. Gaon Sabha reserves its right to add, amend and alter the statement of claim as and when the necessary documents be supplied by any other party to the Gaon Sabha. It is prayed that the compensation may be granted to Gaon Sabha being rightful owner/Bhumidhar of the land in question.
LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 2/7
5. IP No. 2 Sh. Gurucharan Singh also filed his claim. It is stated that IP No. 2 is the sole and absolute owner and is in actual possession of the land measuring 495 sq. yards, out of Khasra no. 64//17 situated in village Mundka, Delhi. It is further stated that IP no.2 had purchased the land in question from Smt. Prakashwati W/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass Gupta vide registered GPA dated 03.05.1995, registered as document No. 8387 in Volume No. 3373, in Book No. 4 at Pages 119-120. Prior to it Smt. Prakaswati had purchased the land in question from recorded owner Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Ajit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.1991, registered as document no. 9220 in Volume no. 6847 in Book No. 1 at pages 117-120.
6. It is stated that IP No. 2 has no knowledge whether any proceedings under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act has been initiated against the recorded owner and ultimately the land has been vested into Gaon Sabha. However, Gaon Sabha never took possession of the land in question and IP No.2 remain in possession of the land in question after its purchase till LAC took possession from him.
7. It is stated that the compensation in respect of land in question has been wrongly assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha, Mundka. It is further stated that IP No. 2 had rented out the land in question to one partnership firm M/s. Asian Rubber India, whose documents pertaining to Import Export Code, Central Sales Tax Registration and Partnership Deed have been filed on record to show that IP No. 2 remained in continued possession till acquisition by the government. It is stated that IP No. 2 is entitled to received LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 3/7 the compensation of the land in question to the extent of 495 sq. yards out of Khasra no. 64//17, situated at village Mundka, Delhi.
8. It is further stated that mutation does not confer any title of the Gaon Sabha or any other person and as such IP no.2 is the owner of the property by virtue of registered documents and cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights to receive compensation. It is prayed that the awarded compensation by virtue of the award in question in respect of land measuring 495 sq. yards out of Khasra no. 64//17 be ordered to be apportioned and paid to the IP No.2 Sh. Gurcharan Singh under protest.
9. Reply filed by IP n.2 to the claim of IP No.1 Gaon Sabha and reiterated the claim filed by him. However, IP No.3 Sh. Harvinder Singh neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim.
10. On the basis of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 26.09.2013 framed the following issues:
1. Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and to what an extent? OPP
2. Relief.
11. IP No. 2 Sh. Gurcharan Singh in order to prove his claim examined himself as IP-2W-1 and proved his affidavit Ex. IP-2W-1/A. He also proved on record certified copies of LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 4/7 GPA dated 03.05.1991 as Ex. PW2W1/1 and sale deed dated 20.11.1991 as Ex. IP2W1/2. He also proved copy of certificate of Importer-Exporter Code as Ex. PW2W1/3, copy of Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules 1957 as Ex. IP2W1/4, copy of certificate of Registration A-4 as Ex. IP2W1/5 and copy of Deed of Partnership as Ex. IP2W1/6. The evidence of IP No. 2 was closed vide statement of Ld. Counsel for the IP No.2 dated 28.10.2015.
12. IP No.1 Gaon Sabha examined Sh. Raj Kumar, Prasar Sahayak Krishi (Ext. Assistant Agriculture), BDO Office (West), Nangloi as IP1W1, who proved his affidavit as Ex. IP1W1/A. The evidence of IP No.1 was closed as per statement of Ld. Counsel for the IP No.1 dated 09.12.2015.
13. I have heard Sh. Aakash Parashar, Ld. Counsel for the IP No.2 and Sh. Nawal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 1/ Gaon Sabha and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
14. IP No.2 Gurcharan Singh appeared in the witness box and proved his affidavit Ex.IP2W1/A. He deposed that he is the owner of land measuring 495 sq.yards, out of Khasra No.64//17 part of acquired land which was purchased by him from one Smt. Prakash Wati vide registered GPA dated 03.05.1995. He further deposed the fact that Smt. Prakash Wati purchased the said land from Smt. Sunita through Sale Deed Ex. IP2W1/2. I have gone through the document. As per Sale Deed of Smt. Sunita which in para 5 specifically LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 5/7 contained that the land which was sold was out side of urbanized limits and for transfer of land as per Section 33 of Land Reform Act, no objection is required from the area Tehsildar / ADM. However, no such no objection filed on record and proved by the IP No.2. Further, IP No.2 relied on the registered GPA Ex.IP2W1/1. Simplicitor GPA does not confer any transfer of right of land in question to the IP No.2. In these circumstances, there is no Agreement to Sell or receipt of payment proved on record by IP No.2. In these circumstances, there is no legal valid transfer of land by sale in favour of IP No.2. Furthermore, according to IP No.2, he had rented out his part of land in question to one M/s Asian Rubbers (India) Ltd, however, no Rent Agreement filed and proved on record by IP No.2. The photocopy of the Mark A and Mark B does not prove that partnership firm was in possession of the alleged land and running the business. On the basis of above observation and discussion, IP No.2 failed to establish the legal right to the alleged land in dispute and continues possession thereof.
On the other hand, IP No.1-Gaon Sabha proved the Revenue record i.e. Khatoni Ex.IP1W1/A, according to which, IP No.1-Gaon Sabha is the Khatedar of the land in question. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, the issue is decided in favour of the IP No.1-Gaon Sabha and against the IP No.2- Gurcharan Singh.
ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
15. In view of findings on issue no.1, IP No.1 Gram Sabha is entitled to entire compensation of Khasra no. 64//17 LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 6/7 min (0-10), 17/1 (1-6). IP No.2- Gurcharan Singh and IP No.3 Harvinder Singh are not entitled to compensation. Reference is answered accordingly.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 20th February, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 20.02.2016 LAC No. 3A/12 Union of India (Mundka) vs. The BDO & Others 7/7