Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs . Shiv Om And Ors. on 4 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 52/09/05
In the matter of :
Union of India Vs. Shiv Om and Ors.
1. Shri Shiv Om S/o Shri Chatarbhuj ... IP No. 1
(1/8thshare) (Kh. No. 64//5/1) (07)
2. Smt. Omi D/o " ... IP No. 2
(1/8thshare)
3. Shri Mukesh S/o " ... IP No. 3
(1/8thshare)
4. Smt. Satyawati D/o " ... IP No. 4
(1/8thshare)
5. Shri Brij Kishore S/o Shri Sheo Narayan ... IP No. 5
(1/2 share)
6. Shri Mange S/o Shri Dalpat ... IP No. 6
(Full share) (Kh. No. 65//1/1/1) (05)
7. Shri Satpal Singh S/o Shri Bhartu ... IP No. 7
(1/12thshare) (Kh. No. 65//1/2/1( (01)
8. Shri Mahavir S/o Bhartu ... IP No. 8
(1/12thshare)
9. Shri Ranvir S/o Shri Bhartu ... IP No. 9
(1/12th share)
10. Shri Virender Kumar S/o Shri Bhartu ... IP No. 10
(1/12thshare)
11. Shri Kesho S/o Shri Roshan ... IP No. 11
(1/3rd share)
12. Shri Jai Bhagwan S/o Shri Roshan ... IP No. 12
(1/3rd share)
13. Shri Bhartu S/o Shri Roshan ... IP No. 13
(1/3rd share) (Kh. No. 65//2/1/1) (01)
14. Shri Kesho S/o Shri Roshan ... IP No. 14
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 1/140
(1/3rd share)
15. Shri Jai Bhagwan S/o Shri Roshan ... IP No. 15
(1/3rd share)
16. Shri Ram Mehar S/o Shri Bohdan ... IP No. 16
(5/56th share) (Kh. No. 65//2/2/1 min) (01)
17. Shri Kanehya Lal S/o Shri Bihari ... IP No. 17
(5/56th share)
18. Shri Ram Chander S/o Shri Bihari ... IP No. 18
(5/56th share)
19. Shri Ganpat Rai S/o Shri Chhatru Mal ... IP No. 19
(5/28th share)
20. Smt. Kalawati widow of Shri Ganga Prashad ... IP
No. 20
(5/28th share)
21. Shri Bhichhan Lal S/o Shri Nand Lal ... IP No. 21
(5/56th share)
22. Smt. Bakhtawari D/o Lok Ram ... IP No. 22
(5/28th share)
23. Smt. Dropati Bai D/o Shri Tara Chander ... IP No. 23
(3/28th share)
24. Shri Layak Ram S/o Shri Vanjat Ram ... IP No. 24
(Full share) (Kh. No. 65//3/1/1) (less than biswa)
25. Shri Narender Swaroop S/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 25
(1/16th share) (Kh.No. 65//10/1/1 min) (02)
26. Shri Surender Swaroop S/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 26
(1/16th share)
27. Shri Virender Swaroop S/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 27
(1/16th share)
28. Shri Jogender Swaroop S/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 28
(1/16th share)
29. Smt. Asha Rani D/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 29
(1/16th share)
30. Smt. Usha Rani D/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 30
(1/16th Share)
31. Smt. Indirawati D/o Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 31
(1/16th share)
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 2/140
32. Smt. Mishri Devi widow of Shri Ram Swaroop ... IP No. 32
(1/16th share)
33. Shri Kishan Swaroop S/o Shri Kesho Ram ... IP No. 33
(½ share)
34. Smt. Rukmani Devi D/o Smt. Dhankor ... IP No. 34
(½ share) (Kh. No. 65//10/2/1) (010)
(Kh. No. 65//12/1) (014)
35. Smt. Manbhari D/o Smt.Dhankor ... IP No. 35
(½ share)
36. Shri Banwari Lal S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 36
(1/9th share) (Kh. No. 65//13/1) (03)
37. Shri Dilip Singh S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 37
(1/9th share)
38. Shri Bishan Singh S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 38
(1/9th share)
39. Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 39
(1/27th share)
40. Shri Rameshwar S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 40
(1/27th share)
41. Shri Suresh S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 41
(1/27th share)
42. Shri Mukhtiyar Singh S/o Shri Shashi Ram ... IP No. 42
(4/27th share)
43. Shri Rai Singh S/o Shri Shashi Ram .. IP No. 43
(4/27th share)
44. Shri Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ran Singh ... IP No. 44
(1/27th share)
45. Shri Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Ran Singh ... IP No. 45
(1/27th share)
46. Shri Sanjeet Singh S/o Shri Ran Singh ... IP No. 46
(1/27th share)
47. Shri Sarjeet Singh S/o Shri Ran Singh ... IP No. 47
(1/27th share)
48. Shri Kali Ram S/o Shri Bhag Mal ... IP No. 48
(1/9th share)
49. Shri Hukam Singh S/o Shri Jai Lal ... IP No. 49
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 3/140
(22/96th share) (Kh. No. 68//11/1/1) (06)
50. Shri Dalel Singh S/o Shri Jai Lal ... IP No. 50
(22/96th share)
51. Shri Maha Singh S/o Shri Jai Lal ... IP No 51
(22/96th share)
52. Shri Dhare S/o Shri Jai Lal ... IP No. 52
(22/96th share)
53. Smt. Saroj Jain S/o Shri Prakash Chand Jain ... IP No. 53
(8/96th share)
54. Shri Jai Pal Singh S/o Shri Uday Ram ... IP No. 54
(1/4th share) (Kh. No. 68//11/2/1) (03)
(Kh. No. 69//7/1) (03)
55. Shri Kartar Singh S/o Shri Har Gobind ... IP No. 55
(1/4th share)
56. Shri Kali Ram S/o Shri Har Gobind ... IP No. 56
(1/4th share)
57. Shri Bhim Singh S/o Shri Har Gobind ... IP No. 57
(1/4th share)
58. Shri Ram Chander S/o Shri Ram Avtar ... IP No. 58
(Full share) (Kh. No. 68//19/3/1) (03)
59. Shri Mange Ram S/o Shri Dalpat ... IP No. 59
(Full share) (Kh. No. 68//25/1, 25/2) (08)
60. Shri Mahender Singh S/o Shri Chander ... IP No. 60
(Full share) (Kh. No. 69//8/1/1 min (01)
61. Shri Banwari Lal S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 61
(1/4th share) (Kh. No. 68//8/2/1 min) (02)
62. Shri Dalip Singh S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 62
(1/4th share)
63. Shri Bishan Singh S/o Shri Juglal ... IP No. 63
(1/4th share)
64. Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 64
(1/12th share)
65. Shri Rameshwar S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 65
(1/12th share)
66. Shri Suresh S/o Shri Nand Ram ... IP No. 66
(1/12th share)
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 4/140
67. Shri Mange Ram S/o Shri Dalpat ... IP No. 67
(Full share) (Kh. No. 69//8/3/1) (01)
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PALAM
68. Gram Sabha, BDO (NG) ... IP No. 68
(Kh. No. 68//18/1 min) (07)
(Kh. No. 19/1/1 min) (05)
(Kh. No. 68//23/101) (01)
(Kh. No. 24/1 min) (02)
(Kh No. 69//15/1 min) (07)
69. Shri S. Aggrawal ... IP No. 69
Shri Sohan Lal
Sons of Shri Prem Chand Aggarwal
R/o WZ33, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
70. Shri Rajender Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh ... IP No. 70
R/o WZ441, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
71. Shri Satish Kumar S/o Shri Mangal Das ... IP No. 71
R/o WZ505, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
72. Smt. Usha W/o Shri Shanker Lal ... IP No.72
R/o WZ32, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
73. Shri Kailash Chander Aggarwal ... IP No. 73
S/o Shri Vridhi Chander Aggarwal
R/o WZ34, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
74. Shri Suraj Bhan S/o Shri Ram Lal ... IP No. 74
R/o WZ35B, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,New Delhi.
75. Shri Prabhu Dayal S/o Shri Govind Narayan Sharma ... IP No. 75
R/o WZ36, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
76. Shri Lakshmi Narayan S/o Shri Sohan Lal ... IP No. 76
R/o WZ506 B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
77. Shri P.S. Harnam Singh S/o Shri Jivan Singh ... IP No. 77
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
78. Shri Ved Gopal S/o Shri Mangal Singh ... IP No. 78
R/o WZ454C, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
79. Shri Naim Chand S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain ... IP No. 79
Shri Ishwar Chand Jain S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain
R/o Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
80. Shri Ram Avtar Aggrawal S/o Shri Kanehya Lal ... IP No. 80
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 5/140
R/o WZ454B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
81. Smt. Vidya Sharma ... IP No. 81
Shri Kamlesh Sharma
R/o WZ506A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
82. Shri Ravinder Sharma S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das ... IP No. 82
R/o WZ506/1, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
83. Shri Ram Avtar Yadav S/o Shri Tanvar Singh ... IP No. 83
R/o RZ441, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
84. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Kanehya Lal ... IP No. 84
R/o WZ-35, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
85. Shri Suresh Chand S/o Shri Tara Chand ... IP No. 85
R/o WZ31, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
86. Shri Devki Nandan S/o Shri Ram Prakash ... IP No. 86
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
87. Shri Parshotam Kumar S/o Shri Bansi Lal ... IP No. 87
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
88. Smt.Santosh Devi W/o Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal ... IP No. 88
R/o WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
89. Shri Mahinder Pal S/o Shri Brahm Dut ... IP No. 89
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
90. Shri Sama Kaur W/o Shri Mam Raj ... IP No. 90
Through LRs
(a) Mani Ram (husband)
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(b) Laxman ( son)
R/o RZF2/232, Gali No. 2, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi,
(c) Tej Singh (son)
R/o WZ70, Gali No. 16, 60 futa Road, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi
(d) Sh. Prem Raj (son)
R/o RZN244, Raj NagarII, Palam Colony, New Delhi
(e) Naresh Kumar (son)
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(f) Sh. Chander Pal (son)
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(g) Krishan Chand (son)
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 6/140
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(h)Krishna (daughter)
R/o 205/30, Faridabad.
(i) Vidhya (daughter)
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(j) Savitri (daughter)
R/o 23/1A, Parghar Road, Allahabad.
(k) Hemlata ( daughter)
R/o WZ506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
91. Shri Rajender Kumar S/o Shri Bansi Lal ... IP No. 91
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
92. Shri Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Chand Gandhi ... IP No. 92
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
93. Shri Babu Lal S/o Shri Sohan Lal ... IP No. 93
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
94. Shri Kanehya Lal S/o Shri Prahlad Ram ... IP No. 94
R/o WZ35, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
95. Shri Kailash Bhardwaj S/o Shri R.C. Bhardwaj ... IP No. 95
R/o WZ27, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
96. Shri Kanwar Dayal S/o Shri Kanehya Lal ... IP No. 96
R/o WZ27, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
97. Shri Suresh Chand S/o Shri Tara Chand ... IP No. 97
R/o Main Road Palam, New Delhi.
98. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Ram Kishan ... IP No. 98
R/o WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
99. Shri Mahesh Kumar ... IP No. 99
R/o WZ28, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
100. Smt. Chander Kala W/o Shri Santosh Kumar ... IP No. 100
R/o WZ255A, Gali No. 3, Ram Chok,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
101. Smt. Sunita Singh D/o Shri Dalpat ... IP No. 101
R/o B2/23, Basant Vihar, Kakrola.
102. Shri Satish Kumar S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan Solanki ... IP No. 102
103. Shri Mahavir ... IP No. 103
104. Shri Ramvir Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh ... IP No. 104
105. Shri Kesho Ram ... IP No. 105
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 7/140
106. Shri Virender Solanki S/o Shri Bharat Singh ... IP No. 106
107. Shri Satpal S/o Shri Bharat Singh ... IP No. 107
108. Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal ... IP No. 108
R/o WZ34, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
109. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Sita Ram Gupta ... IP No. 109
R/o RZ615C, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
110. Shri Basanti Devi S/o Shri Bhim Singh ... IP No. 110
R/o Sadh Nagar, Palam Coloy, New Delhi.
111. Shri S. K. Mittal S/o Shri Khushi Ram ... IP No. 111
R/o RZ615, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
112. Shri Mahender Kumar Sharma ... IP No. 112
S/o Shri Ranjit Singh
R/o RZ616B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
113. Shri Bishan Swaroop S/o Shri Ramdhan Mittal ... IP No. 113
R/o RsZ615B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
114. Shri Suresh Chand S/o Shri Badri Prashad ... IP No. 114
R/o RZ615, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
115. Shri Mahender Kumar Goyal ... IP No. 115
S/o Shri Ramesh Dayal
R/o RZ36C, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
116. Shri Daya Nand S/o Shri Dasi Lal ... IP No. 116
R/o RZ686, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
117. Smt. Vinita S/o Shri Dal Chand ... IP No. 117
R/o RZ36C/A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
118. Smt. Shailesh Aggarwal W/o Shri Anil Kumar ... IP No. 118
R/o RZ36, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
119. Smt. Renu Aggarwal W/o Shri Ashok Kumar ... IP No. 119
R/o RZ36, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
120. Shri Yogesh Kumar ... IP No. 120
Smt.Sushila Devi W/o Shri Lakhmi Chand
R/o RZ615B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
121. Smt. Manbhawti Devi W/o Shri Chhote Lal ... IP No. 121
R/o WZ188, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
122. Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ishwar Chand ... IP No. 122
R/o RZ36A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
123. Shri Suresh Chand S/o Shri Ram Narayan ... IP No. 123
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 8/140
R/o RZ615C, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
124. Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal ... IP No. 124
S/o Shri Jai Narayan Goyal
R/o RZA615, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
125. Smt. Vina Aggarwal W/o Shri Kali Ram ... IP No. 125
R/o RZ36C, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
126. Shri Harswaroop S/o Shri Shiv Charan ... IP No. 126
R/o RZ36AC, Raj Nagar.
127. Shri Jai Pal Singh S/o Shri Uday Ram ... IP No. 127
R/o WZ511/A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
128. Shri Mahender Swaroop Vats ... IP No. 128
R/o WZ188, Main Road, Sadh Nagar, New Delhi.
129. Shri Mahavir Prashad ... IP No. 129
R/o WZ188, Main Road, Sadh Nagar, New Delhi.
130. Shri Shiv Shanker Vats ... IP No. 130
R/o WZ613/A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
131. Shri Laxman Swaroop ... IP No. 131
R/o RZ686, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
132. Shri Mahender Kumar Goyal ... IP No. 132
Smt. Kamla Goyal
Shri Pankaj Aggarwal
Shri Sandeep Aggarwal
133. Shri Yogesh S/o Shri Laxman Das ... IP No. 133
R/o 1/1, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
134. Smt. Dhan Kaur W/o Kanehya Lal ... IP No. 134
R/o RZ36, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
135. Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Bishamber Dayal ... IP No. 135
R/o RZ 1/6, Raj Nagar.
136. Smt. Seema Devi S/o Shri Krishna Kumar ... IP No. 136
R/o RZ3/6, Raj Nagar.
137. Shri Murari Lal Aggarwal S/o Makhan Lal ... IP No. 137
R/o RZ1/6, Raj Nagar.
138. Shri Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh ... IP No. 138
R/o RZ19, Raj Nagar.
139. Shri Dhir Singh S/o Shri Dilchand ... IP No. 139
R/o RZ1/10, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 9/140
140. Shri R. K. Sharma S/o Shri O.P. Sharma ... IP No. 140
R/o RZ1/13, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony.
141. Smt. Urmila Sharma W/o Shri O. P. Sharma ... IP No. 141
R/o RZ1/13, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony.
142. Dr. Jitender S/o Shri Om Prakash ... IP No. 142
R/o RZ99/J, Main Road, Raj Nagar.
143. Shri Rati Ram S/o Shri Prahlad Rai ... IP No. 143
R/o RZ1/8, Raj Nagar.
144. Shri Hari Ram S/o Shri Makhan Lal ... IP No. 144
R/o RZ1/7, Raj Nagar.
145. Smt. Pooja Sharma W/o Shri Dinesh Sharma ... IP No. 145
Smt. Sadhna Sharma W/o Shri R.K. Sharma
R/o RZ737, Raj Nagar.
146. Shri Umesh Saroha S/o Shri Mool Chand Saroha ... IP No. 146
R/o RZ132/6, Raj Nagar.
147. Smt. Satyawati Gupta W/o Kishan Chand Gupta ... IP No. 147
R/o RZ88/J, Main Road, Raj Nagar.
148. Shri Sanjay Gupta S/o Shri Kishan Chand Gupta ... IP No. 148
Shri Manish Gupta S/o Shri Kishan Chand Gupta
R/o RZ88/J, Main Road, Raj Nagar.
149. Shri Mahavir Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh ... IP No. 149
Shri Kaisho Ram S/o Shri Roshan
R/o Village Palam.
150. Shri Randhir Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh ... IP No. 150
R/o RZ290, Village Palam.
151. Shri Sukhbir Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh ... IP No. 151
R/o RZ290, Village Palam.
152. Shri Surender S/o Shri Nafey Singh ... IP No. 152
Shri Jogender S/o Shri Nafey Singh
Shri Praveen S/o Shri Nafey Singh
Shri Sunil S/o Shri Nafey Singh
R/o Village Palam.
153. Shri Braham Prakash S/o Shri Hira Lal ... IP No. 153
R/o 14A, Raj Nagar.
154. Shri Suresh Kumar Garg S/o Shri D.R. Garg ... IP No. 154
R/o 117, Sukhdev Vihar.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 10/140
155. Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta ... IP No. 155
S/o Shri Murari Lal Gupta
R/o WZ269, Palam Village.
156. Smt. Dropti Devi W/o Shri Ramdhan Gupta ... IP No. 156
R/o 4359, Regarpura, Karol Bagh,
Shri Ramcharan Gupta S/o Om Prakash Gupta
R/o E24, Stayawati Nagar, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIII.
157. Shri Satbir Singh S/o Shri Kesho Ram ... IP No. 157
R/o WZ298/C, Palam Village.
158. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Kartar Singh ... IP No. 158
Smt. Premwati W/o Shri Ramji Saroha
R/o RZ/100/J 18L, Main Road Palam , Pooran Nagar.
159. Smt. Sunderi Devi W/o Shri Rajender Singh, ... IP No. 159
Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chander,
Smt. Prabhati Devi W/o Shri Gurdayal Singh,
R/o RZ 15B, Main Road, Palam.
160. Shri Hari Ram S/o Shri Makhan Lal,
R/o RZ1/7, Main Road, Raj Nagar. ... IP No. 160
161. Shri Mohan Lal S/o Shri Hira Lal,
R/o RZ14A, Raj NagarI. ... IP No. 161
162. Shri Hari Ram S/o Shri Prahlad Singh,
R/o WZ612, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 162
163. Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal,
R/o WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 163
164. Shri Rakesh Oberai S/o Shri Krishna Lal
R/o WZ613, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 164
165. Shri Krishan Pal Oberai S/o Shri Sundermal,
R/o RZ614, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 165
166. Shri Inder Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh,
R/o WZ455A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 166
167. Shri K.K. Makkar S/o Shri Chela Ram,
R/o WZ 612A, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 167
168. Shri Lalu Ram S/o Shri Mangu Ram,
R/o Shri RZ 455B, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 168
169. Shri Nand Lal S/o Shri Asha Ram,
R/o WZ 507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 169
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 11/140
170. Shri Ram Swaroop Aggarwal
S/o Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal,
R/o WZ613A, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 170
171. Smt. Indira Devi W/o Shri Gyan Dass,
R/o WZ612, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 171
172. Shri Girraj S/o Shri Hansraj,
WZ613A, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 172
Shri Yograj S/o Shri Hans Raj,
R/o WZ613A, Raj Nagar, Palam.
173. Shri Jage Ram ... IP No. 173
R/o WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam.
Smt. Chhoti Devi W/o Mala Ram
Through LRs.
(a) Sh. Jagan Ram (son)
R/o RZ454, Main Road, Raj Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi45.
(b) Sh. Ram Pal ( son)
(c) Mahinder Singh ( son)
(d) Ranjeet Singh (son)
(e) Dharmender Singh (son)
All R/o RZ202/3H, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi
(f) Smt. Chawli (daughter)
R/o House No. K384, Sakur Pur
New Delhi
(g) Smt. Prem (Daughter)
R/O House No. A339, Mangla Puri
PhaseII, Palam, New Delhi 45
(h) Smt. Krishna (daughter)
R/o Village Pachar, District Sikar
Rajasthan
(i) Smt. Vimla (daughter)
R/o Village Pachar, District Sikar
Rajasthan
(j) Smt. Manju ( daughter)
R/o House No. B135, Mangla Puri,
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 12/140
PhaseII, Palam, New Delhi45
174. Shri Jit Raj S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal, ... IP No. 174
Shri Mohan Raj S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal,
Shri Prakash Chand S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal,
R/o WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam.
175. Shri Madho Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram,
R/o WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 175
176. Shri Naveen Kumar
R/o RZ614, Main Road, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 176
177. Shri Dinesh
R/o 616, Main Road, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 177
178. Shri Anand Swaroop
R/o 616, Main Road, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 178
179. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Shri Lakshmi Chand,
R/o WZ187/3, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 179
180. Shri Prem Chand S/o Shri Devi Sharan,
R/o WZ187/B, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 180
181. Shri Chela Ram S/o Shri Guruditamal,
R/o WZ192, Sadh Nagar, Palam. ... IP No. 181
182. Shri Ved Gopal S/o Shri Mangal Ram,
R/o WZ186187, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 182
183. Shri Shadi Ram S/o Shri Hardev Singh,
R/o WZ186, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 183
184. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Chhote Lal, ... IP No. 184
Shri Jagdish Prashad S/o Shri Chhote Lal,
R/o WZ188, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony.
185. Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Nanak Chand,
Through LRs.
(a)Geeta Devi ( widow)
(b)Mahesh Kumar (son)
R/o RZ 185, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 185
186. Shri Ram Kali Devi W/o Shri Jeet Ram,
R/o RZ 185, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 186
187. Shri Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Devi Sahay,
R/o RZ187B, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 187
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 13/140
188. Shri Mukesh Sharma
R/o RZ616, Main Road, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 188
189. B.D.O. S/W Najafgarh ... IP No. 189
190. Shri Giyasuddin S/o Shri Shirajuddin
WZ613, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 190
191. Shri Laikchand S/o Shri Sohan Lal,
R/o WZ 506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 191
192. Shri Ishwar Chand S/o Shri Gauri Shanker,
R/o WZ 611A, B Raj Nagar I, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 192
193. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Ram Kishan
Through LRs
(a) Sh. Virender singh (maternal grand son)
R/o Village Nasirpur. ... IP No. 193
194. Shri Ram Avtar Yadav
R/o WZ 441, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. ... IP No. 194
195. Shri Sheila W/o Shri Jai Prakash Garg
R/o WZ 511, Village Palam. ... IP No. 195
196. Shri Hardwari Lal W/o Shri Jeet Ram, ... IP No. 196
Shri Prem Singh S/o Shri Jeet Ram
R/o RZ 186, Railway Main Road, Palam Colony.
197. Shri Ranvir Singh S/o Shri Juglal,
R/o Village Palam. ... IP No. 197
198. Shri S. B. Aggarwal
R/o C1119, Janakpuri. ... IP No. 198
199. Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,
R/o C1119, Janakpuri. ... IP No. 199
200. Smt. Sushma Aggarwal,
R/o C1119, Janakpuri. ... IP No. 200
201. Shri Pawan Oberoi S/o Shri Chiranji Lal ... IP No. 201
R/o WZ 613A, Raj Nagar I, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
202. Shri Raj Solanki
S/o Late Shri Balwan Singh Solanki
R/o. House no.786/483, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi ... IP No. 202
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 14/140
203. Shri Dharamdev Solanki S/o Shri Hari Kishan ... IP No. 203
R/o Raj Nagar I, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Village : Palam
Award No. : 7/200506
Filed on : 29.08.2005
Reserved on : 18.05.2011
Decided on : 04.07.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. For construction of approach road from Dwarka Dwar to NH8 through cantonment area under planned development of Delhi, a total of 6 bigha of land of village Palam was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20.01.2004 and notifications under Section 6 and 17(1) of the Act were issued on 16.03.2004.
3. On the land in question existed several houses and shops which were part of unauthorized colonies.
4. Owners / occupants of residential houses and shops wanted that before taking possession of the land in question, the same should be properly demarcated so that they are in a position to know as to which particular part of the land and property under their possession is sought to be taken away by the respondents.
5. Therefore, 69 of such owners / occupants filed Civil Writ Petitions titled as Inder Singh Solanki and Ors. vs Union of India and Anr. bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 86728740/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 15/140
6. Those writ petitions were disposed of on 28.05.2004 and following directions were passed by the Hon'ble High Court.: "In view of there being substantial agreement between the parties on this aspect, it is directed that the respondents shall handover the demarcation report to Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. Supply of the copy of this demarcation report to Mr. Sharma, Advocate would be treated as service on the petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that as per the said demarcation report, the petitioners shall carry out necessary demolition exercise themselves within a period of two months from supply of the demarcation report. The petitioners shall be permitted to do so and they would also be entitled to furnish the Land Acquisition Collector cost of such demolition. After the demolition of acquired portions, it would be necessary to make repairs in the existing then portion with the petitioners to make that inhabitable condition. Mr. Lekhi submitted that the petitioners shall submit the cost of such repairs also to the Land Acquisition Collector. Let it be done and the Land Acquisition Collector, while drawing the Award under Section 11 of the Act shall consider the admissibility of such claims in accordance with law."
7. In concluding part, it was further directed that: "12. In these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (I) The respondents shall supply to the petitioners, as stated in para (6) above, demarcation report with proceeding within two weeks from today.
(II) The petitioners themselves shall carry out the demolition, as undertaken by them, of the structure over the land which is acquired vide Notification dated 20th January, 2004 and submit the cost thereof to the Land Acquisition Collector. This exercise, they shall carry out within a period of two LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 16/140 months from the date when demarcation report is supplied to their counsel and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of such land to the respondents. In case the exercise is not carried out or completed by the petitioners themselves within the stipulated period, it would be open to the respondents to carry out the necessary demolition and take possession of the acquired land.
(III) The petitioners shall also be at liberty to carry out the repairs necessitated as a result of the demolition exercise of the portion of premises that would still remain with them. (IV) They shall be at liberty to submit the cost of demolition as well as cost of repairs to the Land Acquisition Collector and it would be for the Land Acquisition Collector to consider the admissibility of such claims at the time of drawing the Award.
(V) At the time of taking possession of the land, the respondents shall pay 80 per cent of the estimated compensation to the petitioners in terms of Section 17(3A) of the Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector shall try to make the Award as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from taking possession of the land. (VI) The respondents shall treat the present writ petitions as representations of the petitioners for allotment of alternative plots and a decision in this respect shall be taken by the appropriate authority, namely, the Delhi Development Authority within a period of six months from today."
8. Pursuant to directions of Hon'ble High Court, demarcation proceedings were carried out by DDA / LAC. The demarcation report is as under: Sl. Khasra Name Area in Sq. Area in No. No. M. Biswa
1. 65/13 Agra Sweets Corner 11.40 0.270 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 17/140
2. 65/13 Saroha Clink 9.90 0.234
3. 65/13 Ramavtar Singh Yadav 19.50 0.462
4. 65/13 Ramavtar Singh Yadav 12.00 0.284
5. 65/13 Jain Cigarette Store 10.06 0.238
6. 65/13 Nand Bakery 8.30 0.196
7. 65/13/1 Raj Kumar, Sanjeev 6.20 0.147 Kumar
8. 65/13/1 Ved Gopal Gostawal 6.30 0.149
9. 65/13/1 Kanhaya Lal, Ram Avtar 14.60 0.346
10. 65/13/1 Laloo Ram 7.93 0.188
11. 65/13/1 Sheel Chand Bansal 7.93 0.88
12. 65/12 Inder Singh Solanki 16.01 0.378
13. 65/12 Inder Singh Solanki 12.96 0.307
14. 65/12 Jeet Raj, Mohan Lal & 9.45 0.224 Parkash Chand
15. 65/12 Raj Kumar 5.67 0.134
16. 65/12 Raj Kumar, Chhoti Devi 4.09 0.097 wife of MalaRam
17. 65/12 Chowhan 4.62 0.109
18. 65/12 Madho Ram Bansiwal 4.09 0.097
19. 65/12 Om Prakash 4.05 0.096
20. 65/12 Om Prakash 4.65 0.110
21. 65/12 Om Prakash 5.04 0.119
22. 65/12 Satish Kumar Gaba 19.74 0.468
23. 65/12 Sama Kaur 5.88 0.139
24. 65/12 Sama Kaur, Ravinder 9.72 0.230 Kumar
25. 65/12 Ravinder Kumar son of 7.00 0.166 Ghanshyam Dass LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 18/140
26. 65/12 Vidhya Wati 12.50 0.296
27. 65/12 Babu Lal 10.06 0.238
28. 65/12 Lakshmi Narain 10.06 0.238
29. 65/10/1 Dr. Satish Kumar 10.06 0.238
30. 65/10/1 Lake Chand 10.06 0.238
31. 65/10/1 Mangat Ram Gour 8.84 0.209
32. 65/10/1 Devki Nandan 8.84 0.209
33. 65/10/1 Nand Lal 7.93 0.188
34. 65/10/1 Nand Lal 7.93 0.188
35. 65/10/1 Harnam Singh 14.03 0.332
36. 65/10/1 Rajinder Kumar 6.86 0.162
37. 65/10/1 Purushotam Kumar 6.86 0.162
38. 65/10/1 Vijay Kumar 6.86 0.162
39. 65/10/1 Mahender Pal Rastogi 7.32 0.173
40. 65/10/1 Sh. Ishwar Chand 19.83 0.470
41. 65/10/1 Sh. Ishwar Chand 21.04 0.499
42. 65/10/1 Sh. Bhagwan Mittal 45.75 1.085
43. 65/10/1 Smt. Indira Devi 13.72 0.325
44. 65/10/1 Sh. Hari Ram 13.72 0.325
45. 65/10/1 Kamla Kumari, 30.25 0.717
46. 65/10/01 Minuddina (Nawab 23.00 0.545 Restaurant)
47. 65/10/01 Rakesh Oberoi 22.75 0.539
48. 68/24 Ramswaroop Aggarwal 18.00 0.427 (Pasanol Exclusive Store)
49. 68/24 Yograj son of late Sh. 20.50 0.486 Hans Raj
50. 68/24 Kishan Lal Oberoi 20.00 0.474 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 19/140
51. 68/24 Pawan Oberoi 10.00 0.237
52. 68/24 Pawan Oberoi 10.00 0.237
53. 68/24 Pawan Traveks ( Savita 20.00 0.474 Oberoi)
54. 68/24 Shiv Shanker Vats 14.00 0.332
55. 68/24 Smt. Vidhya Devi 43.70 1.036 ( Sharma Enterprises)
56. 68/24 Lakshman Swaroop Vats ( 17.28 0.409 Vats Emporium)
57. 68/24 Smt. Pushpa Devi ( Singla 27.90 0.661 Cloth House)
58. 68/24 Sh. Bhagwat Aggarwal 27.90 0.661
59. 68/18 Pandit Bishan Swaroop 13.20 0.313 Vats ( Temple)
60. 68/18 Deepak Kaushik ( Deepak 10.78 0.255 Bag Store)
61. 68/18 Deepak Kumar Aggarwal 15.18 0.360 ( Neha Bags Store)
62. 68/18 Satpal (Gurmeet Studio) 35.20 0.835
63. 68/18 Smt. Omkari Devi 18.45 0.437 ( Narender Properties)
64. 68/18 Tara Chand ( Ambey 6.41 0.152 Sweets)
65. 68/18 Pramod Krishna wife of 24.30 0.576 S.K. Sharma
66. 68/18 Vinod Sharma son of S.K. 12.56 0.297 Sharma
67. 68/18 Divya Prashtha Diagnostic 17.22 0.408 Centre
68. 68/24 Smt. Kaushalya Devi 25.32 0.600 ( Chadda Book Depot) LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 20/140
69. 68/24 Anand Kumar Brij 12.05 0.285 Kishore ( Jaggi Electronic)
70. 68/24 Mahender Sharma ( Tarun 13.12 0.311 Furniture)
71. 68/24 Mukesh Sharma 6.24 0.147
72. 68/24 Mukesh Sharma 29.88 0.708
73. 68/24 Suresh Nandal 18.36 0.435
74. 68/24 Rakesh Gupta ( Nitin 11.16 0.264 Elect.)
75. 68/24 Bishan Swaroop Mittal 10.98 0.260 (Mittal Shoe Place)
76. 68/7 Mahavir Singh 11.20 0.265
77. 68/7 Satbir Singh 8.32 0.197
78. 69/7 Keshav Ram 8.32 0.197
79. 69/7 Satbir Singh 8.64 0.204
80. 69/7 Randhir Singh 10.24 0.242
81. 69/7 Sukhbir Singh 10.88 0.258
82. 69/7 R.K. Sharma 48.84 1.158
83. 69/7 Mukesh Kumar and 24.09 0.571 Rakesh
84. 69/7 Rajindra Prasad 9.24 0.219
85. 69/7 Rajendra Prasad (shop) 13.31 0.315 (Resi)
86. 69/7 Dhir Singh 25.08 0.595
87. 69/7 Kishan Kumar 32.56 0.772
88. 69/15 Rati Ram Aggarwal 20.90 0.495
89. 69/15 Hari Ram 20.90 0.495
90. 69/15 Vinod Aggarwal 11.02 0.261 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 21/140
91. 69/15 Murari Lal ( Vishnu 41.80 0.991 Store)
92. 69/15 Seema Devi 41.80 0.991
93. 69/15 Umesh Sharma 79.80 1.843
94. 69/15 Dharam Dev Solanki 12.25 0.290
95. 69/15 Dharam Dev Solanki 13.65 0.323
96. 69/15 Mohan Lal son of Hira 17.28 0.409 Lal
97. 69/15 Bhram Prakash son of 35.28 0.837 Hira Lal
98. 69/15 Sundry Devi wife of 7.75 0.183 Rajinder Singh Sumitra Devi wife of Ramesh Chandrad Parwati Devi wife of Gurdyal Singh
99. 69/15 Nursing Home 52.21 1.238
100. 69/15 R.K. Sharma 18.57 0.440
101. 68/11/2 Nafe Singh ( Mangla 4.20 0.099 Readymade Garment)
102. 68/11/2 Chowdhary Shows 3.36 0.079
103. 68/11/2 Chowdhary Cement 5.50 0.130 Agency
104. 68/11/2 Nafe Singh ( Workshop) 3.96 0.093
105. 68/11/2 Nafe Singh ( Shankar 12.00 0.284 Emporium)
106. 68/11/2 Nafe Singh ( Nitin 16.25 0.385 Electronics)
107. 68/11/2 Nafe Singh ( Amit Bros) 14.50 0.344
108. 68/11/1 Yogesh Aggarwal 45.00 1.067 ( Sattyug Readymade)
109. 68/11/1 Yogesh Aggarwal ( Post 25.08 0.595 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 22/140 Office)
110. 68/11/1 Yogesh Aggarwal 7.80 0.185 ( Photostat)
111. 68/11/1 Yogesh Aggarwal ( Shoe 9.00 0.213 shop)
112. 68/24 Satish Aggarwal 11.34 0.031 ( Aggarwal Trunk House)
113. 68/24 Sushila Devi ( Aggarwal 11.34 0.031 Trunk House)
114. 68/24 Suredh Chand Goel ( Goel 11.34 0.031 Trader)
115. 68/24 Sharvan Kumar Mittal 10.98 0.260 (Mittal Textile)
116. 68/24 Kaushal Kishore 11.34 0.031
117. 68/24 Shankar Mittal ( Shiv 11.88 0.281 Hardware)
118. 68/24 Dhru Narayan Aggarwal 11.88 0.281
119. 68/24 Dayanand Gupta 16.38 0.388 ( Vandana Textiles)
120. 68/24 Ramesh Aggarwal 11.86 0.281 (Lakshmi Electrical)
121. 68/24 Naresh Aggarwal 17.52 0.415
122. 68/18 Beena Aggarwal, Renu 33.48 0.794 Aggarwal, Sheela Aggarwal, Veenet Aggarwal
123. 68/19/1 Raj Solanki 21.84 0.518
124. 68/19/1 Raj Solanki (Amit STD) 1.80 0.042
125. 68/19/1 Ranbir Singh 14.53 0.344
126. 68/19/1 AnajyEntp. 6.29 0.149
127. 68/19/1 Ashok Kumar Gor 20.60 0.488 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 23/140
128. 68/19/1 Choudhary Karam Singh 32.24 0.764
129. 68/19/1 Jaggu Mal 20.88 0.495
130. 68/19/1 Jaggu Mal & Sons 8.40 0.199
131. 68/19/1 Smt. Dhan Kaur Devi wife 15.79 0.374 of Kanhiya Lal
132. 68/19/1 Mr. Ishwar 27.27 0.646
133. 65/3/2 Temple 118.82 2.818
134. 65/2/1 Kailash Chand Aggarwal 22.59 0.535
135. 65/2/2 Aggarwal Juice Corner 10.20 0.241
136. 65/3/2 Subhash Chand 19.58 0.464
137. 65/2/1 Ramesh Chand 6.85 0.162
138. 68/25 Sunil Book Store 18.47 0.438
139. 65/3/2 Kailash Bhardwaj 15.29 0.362
140. 69/8/2 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, 63.68 1.510 Manish Kumar Gupta
141. 69/8/1 Smt. Satya Gupta 44.89 1.605
142. 69/8/3 Not Available 7.32 0.173
143. 68/8/3 Not Avilable 26.15 0.620
144. 65/3/2 Parveen Jain 12.05 0.285
145. 65/2/2 Deepak Textiles 10.20 0.242
146. 65/3/2 Dev Prakash Sharma 15.56 0.369
147. 65/2/1 Usha Garg & Neelam 11.48 0.272
148. 65/2/1 Om Prakash 23.34 0.553
149. 65/2/1 Kubi Raml 9.94 0.235
150. 65/2/2 Bichcha Lal 10.20 0.241
151. 65/2/1 Krishan 18.57 0.440
152. 68/25 Ved Gopal 21.11 0.500
153. 65/3/2 Jai Bhagwan 19.58 0.464 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 24/140
154. 65/2/1 Lajpat Rai, Suresh Chand 20.63 0.489
155. 68/25 Janta Enterprises 4.86 0.115
156. 65/3/2 Surya Bhan Singh 11.05 0.262
157. 65/2/1 Suraj Bhan 22.59 0.535
158. 65/2/1 Mittar Saree Store 6.85 0.162
159. 65/3/2 Atish Chand Ramesh 20.33 0.482 Chand Jain
160. 65/2/1 Krishan Kant 104.70 2.483
161. 65/2/1 Kanhaiya Ram 13.78 0.326
162. 68/25 Mahendar Sarup 16.60 0.393
163. 65/2/2 Satnarayan Aggarwal, 11.48 0.272 Pushpa Agarwal
164. 65/3/2 Rakesh Bansal 14.06 0.333
165. 65/3/2 Shri Krishan Aggarwal 31.62 0.750
166. 65/2/2 Shambhu Footwear 10.20 0.241
167. 65/2/2 Ajay Sharma 5.09 0.120
168. 65/2/1 Shankar Lal Aggarwal 9.94 0.235
169. 65/2/1 Sunder Lal Store 6.85 0.162
170. 68/25 Sunil Book Store 18.47 0.438
171. 65/2/1 Kailash Chand Aggarwal 22.59 0.535
172. 65/1/1 Closed Shop WZ 193, 5.02 0.119 Near R.K. Book Depot
173. 65/1/1 Gyan Prakash 5.02 0.119
174. 65/1/1 Ved Kumar Kalra, Radhey 10.03 0.237 Shyam Kalra
175. 65/1/1 Malik Building Material 21.96 0.520
176. 65/1/1 Chela Ram 21.96 0.520
177. 68/25 Cement Shop 3.17 0.075
178. 68/25 Suman Clinic 2.68 0.063 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 25/140
179. 68/25 M.K. Service Centre 2.68 0.063 Grand Total 3044.69 71.134 biswa 3.62 Bigha
9. In the demarcation proceedings, the true and correct area required by the DDA was demarcated by the Engineering Wing and Land Management Wing of DDA in the presence of interested persons as a result of which there was a difference between the land notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the final actual requirement of DDA.
10. The DDA staff identified the land and portion of the structures required by them and accordingly the possession of the said identified land / structures was taken over by LAC staff and handed over to DDA.
11. The measurement of the said possessed land comes to 4 bigha and 8 biswa and Khasra wise details of said land are as under: KHASRA NO. AREA 64//5/1 Min 07 65//1/1 005 65//1/2/1 001 65//2/1/1 Min 001 65//2/2/1 Min 001 65//3/1/1 Less than 001 65//10/1/1 Min 002 65//10/2/1 Min 004 65//12/1 010 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 26/140 65//13/1 003 68//11/1/1 006 68//11/2/1 003 68//18/1 Min 007 68//19/1/1 Min 005 68//19/3/1 003 68//23/1 001 68//24/1 Min 002 68//25/1 005 68//25/2 003 69//8/1/1 Min 001 69//8/2/1 Min 002 69//8/3/1 001 69//7/1 008 69//15/1 Min 007 Total 408
12. Collector determined the market value @ Rs. 749/ per sq. yd.
13. So far as valuation of structures is concerned, the collector did not give any relief in the absence of sanctioned plan for the structures. Collector termed the structures as illegal constructions and for ignoring structures over land in question the collector referred to directions of Secretary (L&B) who had directed to get valuation estimate of built up structures only in respect of legal / authorized structures which are duly sanctioned by NDMC /MCD.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 27/140
14. Award was announced on 23.08.2005.
15. Contrary to the directions of Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.05.2004, none of the petitioners, who were party in those writ petitions, submitted cost of demolition and repairs to the LAC.
16. In the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Cont Cas (c) No. 690702/2005, it is noted as under: "5. Although in para 12 (4) of the judgment dated 28.05.2004 the petitioners were given an opportunity to submit the cost of demolition as well as cost of repairs to the LAC, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there are no documents on record to show if and when the exact details of such costs were submitted to the LAC.
6. Mr. Harshwardhan, Patwari from the office of LAC, District South West, Kapashera, New Delhi is present in Court along with the records. He informs the Court that there are some estimates of the costs of the demolition carried out which are available on record but none of these has been submitted by the petitioners."
17. Said contempt application bearing contempt case (c) No. 69072 (2005) titled as Inder Singh Solanki & Ors. vs. S.S. Kanwat & Anr. was filed by only 13 out of 69 writ petitioners.
18. Said contempt application was disposed of on 15.03.2007 by Hon'ble High Court and following directions were passed: "9.As regards the admissibility of claims for reimbursement of cost of demolition and cost of repairs, while the learned counsel for the DDA may be justified in pointing out that the LAC has become functus officio, this Court is of the view that in order to give affect to the directions of the Division Bench in the ordered dated 28.05.2005 a direction should be issued to the ADJ to also consider the admissibility of these claims LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 28/140 for demolition costs while deciding the claims for compensation for the lands in question. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for a time bound directions in this regard also appears to be justified.
10. The learned ADJ is requested to try and dispose of the claims of the petitioners herein for demolition costs, along with their claims for compensation under Section 30 and 31 of the Act, within a period of six months from today. The decision by the DDA to allot alternative plots, could depend upon the outcome of the decision of the ADJ. The DDA should take a decision on the said question within a period of two months from the date of the disposal of the reference by the ADJ."
19. In this reference, initially there were 200 interested persons. However, three applicants filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for their impeadment as interested persons. Said application was allowed by the ld. Predecessor of this court vide orders dated 14.08.2008 and Shri Pawan Oberoi, Shri Dharam Dev Solanki and Shri Raj Solanki were impeaded as IP No. 201 to 203.
20. IP No. 167 were the recorded owners of the land in question.
21. As per ENM, Collector has delineated share of each of IP No. 167.
22. IP No. 68 and 211 are Gaon Sabha and Block Development Officer respectively.
23. Out of total land in question, Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner of 1 bigha and 2 biswa and rest of the land is in the names of IP No. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 29/140 167 in the revenue records.
24. As recorded owners had sold the land to various persons decades ago, all the recorded owners were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 31.10.2007. To that extent, controversy came to an end at the very threshold.
25. On 31.10.2007, following issues were framed:
1. To what apportionment of the compensation and what amount of costs of demolition and costs of repair; with what interest, if any; and which of the IP is entitled for?
2. Relief
26. On behalf of Gaon Sabha, claim was filed on 04.04.2007. It was stated that Gaon Sabha is bhumidar of suit land and no other person has any right, title or interest in the same except the Gaon Sabha. In this claim petition, Gaon Sabha did not plead that land in question was in the possession of Gaon Sabha at the time of its taking over by the collector. Gaon Sabha also claimed entire compensation whereas, at best, it is recorded owner of 1 bigha and 2 biswa of land out of total land of 4 bigha and 8 biswa.
27. Without amending its claim petition, Gaon Sabha filed second claim petition on 07.11.2007. In this claim petition, gaon sabha again demanded the 'entire compensation' on the basis of pleadings that Gaon Sabha was in possession of land in question when its possession was taken over by the collector.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 30/140
28. The only evidence on behalf of Gaon Sabha is the statement of counsel for Gaon Sabha dated 28.11.2007 that 'as per instructions, Gaon Sabha places its claim upon the award made by the LAC. No further evidence is to be led.'
29. Gaon Sabha did not contest the claims of different interested persons as Gaon Sabha neither filed any written statement nor crossexamined the witnesses / interested persons.
30. As claim dated 17.11.2007 was filed by Gaon Sabha without withdrawing first claim dated 04.04.2007 and without leave of the Court and without amending earlier claim dated 04.04.2007, subsequent claim dated 17.11.2007 cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of disposal of this reference.
31. Gaon Sabha has not pleaded in its claim petition that Gaon Sabha was in possession of the land in question at the time of its taking over by the Collector.
32. In the claim petitions, documents and evidence of interested persons who are IP No. 69 to 203 it is amply clear that there were shops and houses over land in question. Therefore, gaon sabha was not in possession of land in question.
33. Not only evidence of IPs, but evidence of Union of India in the form of 179 valuation reports got prepared by PWD which are Ex. R1 to R179 also show that Gaon Sabha was never in possession of suit land. Following can be culled out from these valuation reports: Sl. No. Khasra Plinth Net Owner Trade Year of No. Area Value Name Construct LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 31/140 (Rs.) ion
01. 65/13 11.40 32,202.4 Nil Agra 1990 sq.mtr. 5 Sweets Corner
02. 65/13 9.90 33,427.7 Nil Saroha 1990 sq.mtr. 3 Clinic
03. 65/13 19.50 25,172 Ram Nil 1970 sq.mtr. Avtar Singh Yadav
04. 65/13 12.0 30,459 Ram Nil 1975 sq.mtr. Avtar Singh Yadav
05. 65/13 10.06 30,386 Nil Jain 1980 sq.mtr. Cigarette Store
06. 65/13 8.30 47,697 Nil Nand 1980 sq.mtr. Bakery
07. 65/13/1 6.2 20,514 Raj Nil 1990 sq.mtre. Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar
08. 65/13/1 6.3 34710 Vaid Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Gopal (GF) Gostawal 6.3 sq.mtr.
(FF)
09. 65/13/1 14.60 1,17,002 Kanhaya Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Lal, Ram (GF) Avtar 14.60 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 32/140 sq.mtr.
(FF)
10. 65/13/1 7.93 42,397 Laloo Bansal 1990 sq.mtr Ram Cloth (GF) House 7.93 sq.mtr.
(FF)
11. 65/13/1 7.93 42,397 Sheel Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Chand (GF) Bansal 7.93 sq.mtr.
(FF)
12. 65/12 16.01 2,43,802 Inder State 1995 sq.mtr Singh Bank of (GF) Solanki India 16.01 (GF) sq.mtr (FF) 16.01 sq.mtr.
(SF)
13. 65/12 12.96 69,898 Inder Deep 1995 sq.mtr. Singh Medical Solanki Store
14. 65/12 9.45 25,263 Geet Raj, Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Mohan Lal and Prakash Chand
15. 65/12 5.67 44,820 Raj Bartan 1998 sq.mtr. Kumar Store (GF) LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 33/140 9.76 sq.mtr (FF)
16. 65/12 4.09sq.m 11,876 Raj Stove, 1998 tr. Kumar Cycle Works
17. 65/12 4.62 24,702 Chhoti Pal Meat 1990 sq.mtr. Devi W/o Shop (GF) Mala 4.62 Ram sq.mtr Chowhan (FF)
18. 65/12 4.09 30,643 Madho Nil 1980 sq.mtr. Ram Bansiwal
19. 65/12 4.05 14,126 Om Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Prakash
20. 65/12 4.65 16,215 Om Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Prakash
21. 65/12 5.04 17,575 Om Nil 1990 Prakash
22. 65/12 19.4 1,17,318 Satish Royal 1990 sq.mtr. Kumar Dry Gaba Cleaners
23. 65/12 5.88 24,063 Sama Brigh 2003 sq.mtr. Kaur Dry Cleaners
24. 65/12 9.72 1,02,605 Sama Nil 2003 sq.mtr. Kaur (GF) 16.44 sq.mtr.
(FF) LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 34/140
25. 65/12 7 sq.mtr. 42,078 Ravinder Nil 1990 (GF) Kumar 7.08 S/o sq.mtr. Ghanshy (FF) am Das
26. 65/12 12.50 33,431 Vidhyaw Sharma 1990 sq.mtr. ati Store
27. 65/12 10.06 26,907 Babu Lal Nil 1990 sq.mtr.
28. 65/12 10.06 26,907 Lakshmi Krishna 1990 sq.mtr. Narayan Hardwar e
29. 65/10/1 10.06 26,907 Dr.Satish Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Kumar
30. 65/10/1 10.06 26,907 Lake Harit 1990 sq.mtr. Chand Store
31. 65/10/1 8.84 23,632 Mangat Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Ram Gour
32. 65/10/1 8.84 23,632 Devki Nil 1980 sq.mtr. Nandan
33. 65/10/1 7.93 17,175 Nand Lal Shop no. 1980 sq.mtr. 1
34. 65/10/1 7.93 17,175 Nand Lal Gulshan 1980 sq.mtr. Embroid ery, shop no.2
35. 65/10/1 14.03 2,43,834 Harnam Sardar 1995 sq.mtr. Singh Saree (basemen Centre
t) 14.03 sq.mtr.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 35/140 (GF)
36. 65/10/1 6.86 58.364 Rajender Amit Gift 1999 sq.mtr. Kumar House (GF) 6.86 sq.mtr.
(FF)
37. 65/10/1 6.86 58,364 Purshotta Nil 1999 sq.mtr. m Kumar (GF) 6.86 sq.mtr.
(FF)
38. 65/10/1 6.86 52.102 Vijay Nil 1990 sq.mtr. Kumar (GF) 6.86 sq.mtr.
(FF)
39. 65/10/1 7.32 51,051 Mehande Nil 1990 sq.mtr. r Pal (GF) Rastogi 7.32 sq.mtr.
(FF)
40. 65/10/1 19.83 66,793 Ishwar Garg 1985 sq.mtr. Chand Saree Emporiu m (2 shops)
41. 65/10/1 21.04 50,919 Ishwar 2 shops 1985 sq.mtr. Chand
42. 65/10/1 45.75 1,10,695 Bhagwan 4 shops 1985 sq.mtr. Mittal LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 36/140
43. 65/10/1 13.72 36,692 Indra Amirt 1990 sq.mtr. Devi Hair Saloon
44. 65/10/1 13.72 73,356 Hari Ram Nil 1990 sq.mtr.
(GF) 13.72 sq.mtr.
(FF)
45. 65/10/1 30.25 2,39,109. Kamla Liquor 2000 sq.mtr. 18 Kumari Shop (GF) 30.25 sq.mtr.
(FF)
46. 65/10 23 1,95,669. Minu Nawab 1999 sq.mtr. 24 Ddina Restaura (GF) nt 23 sq.mtr.
(FF)
47. 65/10/1 22.75 1,98,070. Rakesh Nil 1995 sq.mtr. 35 Oberoi (GF) 22.75 sq.mtr.
(FF)
48. 68/24 18 sq.mtr 2,70,965. Ram Pasanol 2000 (basemen 33 Swaroop Exclusiv
t) Aggarwa e Store 18 l sq.mtr (FF) 18 sq.mtr.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 37/140 (second floor)
49. 68/24 20.50 1,72,321. Yog Raj Nil 1990 sq.mtr. 90 S/o Lt.
(Ground Sh Has
Floor) Raj
20.50
sq.mtr.
(FF)
50. 68/24 20 2,45,300. Kishan Nil 1998
sq.mtr. 98 Lal
(GF) Oberoi
40
sq.mtr
(FF &
SF)
51. 68/24 10 38,591.0 Pawan Nil 1998
sq,mtr. 3 Oberoi
52. 68/24 10 38,591.0 Pawan Nil 1998
sq.mtr. 3 Oberoi
53. 68/24 20 76,619.3 Savita Pawan 1998
sq.mtr. 8 Oberoi Travels
54. 68/24 14 1,52,464. Shiv Nil 1995
sq.mtr. 84 Shankar
Vats
55. 68/24 43.70 1,85,651. Vidhya Sharma 1998
sq.mtr. 21 Devi Enterpris
es (4
shops)
56. 68/24 17.28 75,725.7 Lakshma Vats 1995
sq.mtr. 9 n Emporiu
Swaroop m
Vats
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 38/140
57. 68/24 27.90 3,27,782. Pushpa Singla 1998
sq.mtr. 50 Devi Cloth
House
58. 68/24 27.90 3,27,782. Bhagwat Nil 1998
sq.mtr. 50 Aggarwa
(GF) l
55.80
sq.mtr
(FF &
SF)
59. 68/18 13.20 42,950.8 Pt.Bhisha Temple 1985
sq.mtr. 8 n
Swaroop
Vats
60. 68/18 10.78 36,582.2 Deepak Deepak 1988
sq.mtr. 2 Kaushik Bag
Store
61. 68/18 15.18 51,513.7 Deepak Neha 1988
sq.mtr. 4 Kumar Bags
Aggarwa Store
l
62. 68/18 35.20 1,35,058. Sat Pal Gurmeet 1995
sq.mtr. 38 Studio
63. 68/18 18.45 46,078.1 Omkari Narender 1980
sq.mtr. 7 Devi Propertie
s
64. 68/18 6.41 14,024.1 Tara Ambey 1980
sq.mtr. 0 Chand Sweets
65. 68/18 24.30 79,068.6 Pramod Nil 1985
sq.mtr. 7 Krishna
S/o S K
Sharma
66. 68/18 12.56 73,852.5 Vinod Nil 1985
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 39/140
sq.mtr. 7 Sharma
(GF) and S/o S K
12.56 Sharma
sq.mtr.
(FF)
67. 68/18 17.22 80,818.6 Nil Divya 2000
sq.mtr. 6 Prastha
Diagnosti
c Centre
68. 68/24 25.32 57,841.5 Kaushlya Chaddha 1980
sq.mtr. 4 Devi Book
Depot
69. 68/24 12.05 26,378.6 Anand Jaggi 1980
sq.mtr. 7 Kumar, Electroni
Brij c
Kishore
70. 68/24 13.12 1,05,552. Mahende Tarun 2002
sq.mtr. 64 r Sharma Furniture
(GF)
13.12
sq.mtr.
(FF)
71. 68/24 5.59 6,562.53 Mukesh Nil 1980
cum. Sharma
72. 68/24 29.88 3,66,479. Mukesh Nil 1998
sq.mtr. 66 Sharma
(GF)
59.76
sq.mtr.
(FF &
SF)
73. 68/24 18.36 3,02,453. Suresh Nil 1996
sq.mtr. 94 Nandal
(GF)
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 40/140
58.68
sq.mtr.
(FF &
SF)
74. 68/24 11.76 49,518.4 Rakesh Nitin 1996
sq.mtr. 2 Gupta Electrical
75. 68/24 10.98 93,707.7 Bishan Mittal 1996
sq.mtr. 0 Swarup Shoe
Mittal Place
76. 65/7 8.32 25,709.0 Satbir Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 8 Singh
77. 65/7 11.20 30,671.5 Mahavee Nil 1984
sq.mtr. 2 r SIngh
78. 65/7 8.32 25,714 Keshav Sonali 1990
sq.mtr. Ram Scooter
79. 65/7 8.64 27,222.2 Satbeer Gupta 1990
sq.mtr. 7 Singh Railing
Centre
80. 65/7 10.24 31,495.3 Randheer Solanki 1985
sq.mtr. 3 Singh Telecom
81. 65/7 10.88 33,463.7 Sukhveer Solanki 1985
sq.mtr. 9 Singh Bakery
82. 65/7 48.84 39,840.8 R K Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 6 Sharma
83. 65/7 24.09 64,178.2 Mukesh Nil 1994
sq.mtr. 4 Kumar
(GF) and
24.09 Rakesh
sq.mtr. Kumar
(basemen
t)
84. 65/7 9.24 31,262.5 Rajendra Sunrise 1995
sq.mtr. 4 Prashad Electroni
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 41/140
cs
85. 69/7 8.91 45,032.9 Rajendra Shop 1995
sq.mtr. 4 Prashad
86. 69/7 25.08 78,462.1 Dheer Shop 1990
sq.mtr. 3 Singh
87. 69/7 32.56 2,09,805. Kishan Choudha 1990
sq.mtr. 05 Kumar ry
(GF) Marbles
32.56
sq.mtr.
(FF)
88. 69/15 20.90 63,792.6 Rati Ram Ankit 1990
sq.mtr. 6 Aggarwa Store
l
89. 69/15 20.90 1,30,742. Hari Ram Aren 1990
sq.mtr. 02 General
(GF) Store
20.90
sq.mtr.
(FF)
90. 69/15 11.02 68,125.5 Vinod Ration 1990
sq.mtr. 3 Aggarwa Shop
(GF) l
11.02
sq.mtr.
(FF)
91. 69/15 41.80 1,61,485. Murari Vishnu 1990
sq.mtre. 53 Lal Store
92. 69/15 41.80 1,48,278. Seema Akshay 1990
sq.mtr. 68 Devi Store
93. 69/15 79.80 3,66,700. Umesh Sunil 1998
sq.mtr. 98 Sharma Memoria
(GF,FF l Hospital
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 42/140
& SF)
94. 69/15 12.25 37,428 Dharam D S C 1985
sq.mtr. Dev Bak Ltd.
Solanki
95. 69/15 30.65 40,952.5 Dharam Dev 1985
sq.mtr. 4 Dev Medicos
Solanki
96. 69/15 17.28 56,253.3 Mohan Mohan 1990
sq.mtr. 1 Lal S/o Cycle
Hira Lal Works
97. 69/15 35.28 1,18,001. Bhram Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 90 Prakash
(GF & S/o Hira
FF) Lal
98. 69/15 7.75 22,855.8 Sundry Gujjar 1984
sq.mtr. 6 Devi W/o Marble
Rajendra
Singh,
Sumitra
Devi,
W/o
Ramesh
Chandra
and
Parvati
Devi W/o
Gurdayal
Singh
99. 69/15 52.21 7,34,234. Urmila Sharma 1995
sq.mtr. 52 Sharma Nursing
(GF) Home
156.62
sq.mtr(F
F & SF
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 43/140
& TF)
100. 69/15 18.75 2,68,950. R K Nil 1995
sq.mtr. 37 Sharma
(GF)
55.72
sq.mtr.
(FF, SF
& TF)
101. 68/11/2 4.20 73,885.4 Nafe Mangla 1985
sq.mtr. 6 Singh Readyma
(GF) de
18.57 Garments
sq.mtr.
(FF)
102. 68/11/2 3.36 10,335.2 Nil Choudha 1985
sq.mtr. 1 ry Shoes
103. 68/11/2 5.50 16,917.7 Nil Choudha 1985
sq.mtr. 5 ry
Cement
Agency
104. 68/11/2 3.39 10,257.5 Nafey Work 1985
sq.mtr. 0 Singh Shop
105. 68/11/2 12 38,331.1 Nafey Shanker 1985
sq.mtr. 2 Singh Cloth
Emporiu
m
106. 68/11/2 16.25 51,906.7 Nafey Nitin 1985
sq.mtr. 3 Singh Electroni
cs
107. 68/11/2 14.50 47,185.1 Nafey Amit 1985
sq.mtr. 4 Singh Brothers
108. 68/11/1 45 1,85,308. Yogesh Satyug 1980
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 44/140
sq.mtr. 64 Aggarwa Readyma
(GF & l de
FF)
109. 68/11/1 25.08 2,34,196. Yogesh Post 1980
sq.mtr. 83 Aggarwa Office
(Baseme l
nt)
50.16
sq.mtr.
(GF &
FF)
110. 68/11/1 7.80 26,697.7 Yogesh Photostat 1990
sq.mtr. 2 Aggarwa
l
111. 68/11/1 9 sq.mtr. 30,805.0 Yogesh Shoe 1990
6 Aggarwa Shop
l
112. 68/24 11.34 92,444.9 Satish Aggarwa 1996
sq.mtr. 6 Aggarwa l Trunk
(GF) l House
11.34
sq.mtr.
(FF)
113. 68/24 11.34 1,36,499. Sushila Aggarwa 1996
sq.mtr. 88 Devi l Trunk
(GF) House
22.68
sq.mtr.
(FF +
SF)
114. 68/24 11.34 91,821.4 Suresh Goel 1996
sq.mtr. 3 Chand Traders
(GF) Goel
11.34
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 45/140
sq.mtr.
(FF)
115. 68/24 10.98 91,851.0 Sharwan Mittal 1997
sq.mtr. 4 Kumar Textile
(GF) Mittal
10.98
sq.mtr.
(FF)
116. 68/24 11.34 91,821.4 Kaushal Nil 1996
sq.mtr. 3 Kishore
(GF)
11.34
sq.mtr.
(FF)
117. 68/24 11.88 1,31,451. Shanker Shiv 1990
sq.mtr. 22 Mittal Hardwar
(GF) e
22.68
sq.mtr.
(FF &
SF)
118. 68/24 11.88 1,31,451. Dhru Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 22 Narayan
(GF) Aggarwa
22.68 l
sq.mtr.
(FF &
SF)
119. 68/24 16.38 1,89,759. Daya Vandana 1998
sq.mtr. 53 Nand Textiles
(GF) Gupta
32.76
sq.mtr.
(FF &
SF)
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 46/140
120. 68/24 11.86 86,329.4 Ramesh Lakshmi 1998
sq.mtr. 9 Aggarwa Electrical
(GF) l s
11.86
sq.mtr.
(FF)
121. 68/24 17.52 74,561.9 Naresh Nil 1980
sq.mtr. 6 Aggarwa
(GF) l
8.76
sq.mtr.
(FF)
122. 68/18 33.48 2,51,778. Beena Nil 2002
sq.mtr. 63 Aggarwa
(GF) l, Renu
25.35 Aggarwa
sq.mtr. l, Sheela
(FF) Aggarwa
l, Vineet
Aggarwa
l
123. 68/19/1 21.84 1,62,917. Raj Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 54 Solanki
(Baseme
nt)
21.84
sq.mtr.
(GF)
124. 68/19/1 1.80 5,392.21 Raj Amit 1998
sq.mtr. Solanki STD
125. 68/19/1 14.53 2,16,653. Ranbir Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 96 Singh
(GF)
43.58
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 47/140
sq.mtr.
(FF, SF
& TF)
126. 68/19/1 6.29 24,316.6 Nil Anajay 1999
sq.mtr. 4 Entp.
127. 68/19/1 20.60 70,606.8 Dr. Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 0 Ashok
Kumar
Gor
128. 68/19/1 32.24 1,22,307. Choudha Nil 1998
sq.mtr. 56 ry Karam
(Baseme Singh
nt & GF)
129. 68/19/1 20.88 80,204.1 Jaggu Nil 1999
sq.mtr. 1 Mal
(Baseme
nt & GF)
130. 68/19/1 8.40 74,303.9 Jaggu Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 0 Mal &
(GF) Sons
14.60
sq.mtr.
(FF)
131. 68/19/1 15.79 54,158.2 Dhan Nil 1990
sq.mtr. 1 Kaur
Devi w/o
Kanhiya
Lal
132. 68/19/1 27.27 56,927.3 Ishwar Nil 1980
sq.mtr. 8
133. 65/3/2 23.34 3,86,675 Temple Nil 1985
sq.mtr.
134. 65/2/1 22.59 73,865 Kailash Nil 1992
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 48/140
sq.mtr. Chankd
Aggarwa
l
135. 65/2/2 10.20 35,568 Nil Aggarwa 1990
sq.mtr. l Juice
Corner
136. 65/3/2 19.58 64,016 Subhash Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Chand
137. 65/2/1 6.85 23,249 Ramesh Nil 1988
sq.mtr. Chand
138. 68/25 18.47 57,019 Nil Sunil 1988
sq.mtr. Book
Store
139. 65/3/2 15.29 53,318 Kailash Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Bhardwaj
140. 69/8/2 63.68 2,28,004 Sanjay Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Kumar
Gupa,
Manish
Kumar
Gupta
141. 69/8/1 44.89 1,69,078 Smt. Nil 1996
sq.mtr. Satya
Gupta
142. 69/8/3 7.32 23,935 Nil Nil 1990
sq.mtr.
143. 69/8/3 26.15 91,188 Nil Nil 1990
sq.mtr.
144. 65/3/2 12.05 42,020 Parveen Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Jain
145. 65/2/2 10.20 35,568 Nil Deepak 1990
sq.mtr. Textiles
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 49/140
146. 65/3/2 15.56 54,260 Dev Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Parkash
Sharma
147. 65/2/1 11.48 38,958 Usha Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Garg &
Neelam
148. 65/2/1 23.34 76,317 Om Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Prakash
149. 65/2/1 9.94 32,502 Kubi Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Raml
150. 65/2/2 10.20 32,086 Bichcha Nil 1988
sq.mtr. Lal
151. 65/2/1 18.57 63,026 Krishan Nil 1992
sq.mtr.
152. 68/25 21.11 1,35,564 Ved Jaipur 1990
sq.mtr. Gopal Book
(GF) Depot
21.11
sq.mtr.
(FF)
153. 65/3/2 19.58 64,016 Jai Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Bhagwan
154. 65/2/1 20.63 70,018 Lajpat Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Rai
Suresh
Chand
155. 68/25 4.86 15,034 Nil Janta 1990
sq.mtr. Enterpris
es
156. 65/3/1 11.05 38,533 Surya Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Bhan
Singh
157. 65/2/1 22.59 73,865 Suraj Nil 1992
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 50/140
sq.mtr. Bhan
158. 65/2/1 6.85 23,249 Nil Mittal 1988
sq.mtr. Saree
Store
159. 65/3/2 20.33 70.896 Atish Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Chand,
Ramesh
Chand
Jain
160. 65/2/1 104.7 3,09,861 Krishan Nil 1985
sq.mtr. Kant
161. 65/2/1 13.78 46,768 Kanhaiya Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Ram
162. 68/25 16.60 51,246 Mahende Pravav 1988
sq.mtr. r Sarup Stationer
y
163. 65/2/2 11.48 38,958 Sat Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Narain
Aggarwa
l, Pushpa
Aggarwa
l
164. 65/3/2 14.06 49,028 Rakesh Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Bansal
165. 65/3/2 31.62 1,10,283 Sri Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Krishan
Aggarwa
l
166. 65/2/2 10.20 32,086 Nil Shambhu 1988
sq.mtr. Footwear
167. 65/3/2 5.09 17,750 Ajay Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Sharma
168. 65/2/1 9.94 36,512 Shanker Nil 1994
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 51/140
sq.mtr. Lal
Aggawal
169. 65/2/1 6.85 23.249 Nil Sunder 1988
sq.mtr. Lal Store
170. 68/25 18.47 57,019 Nil Sunil 1988
sq.mtr. Book
Store
171. 65/2/1 22.59 73,865 Kailash Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Chand
Aggarwa
l
172. 65/1/1 5.02 5,501 Nil Nil 1992
sq.mtr.
173. 65/1/1 5.02 5,501 Gyan Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Prakash
174. 65/1/1 10.03 11,318 Ved Nil 1992
sq.mtr. Kumar
Kalra,
Radhey
Shyam
Kalra
175. 65/1/1 21.96 21,362 Nil Malik 1990
sq.mtr. Building
Material
176. 65/1/1 21.96 21,362 Chela Nil 1990
sq.mtr. Ram
177. 65/25 3.17 2,903 Nil Cement 1985
sq.mtr. Shop
178. 65/25 2.68 2,710 Nil Suman 1990
sq.mtr. Clinic
179. 65/25 2.68 Incomple Nil N.K. 1990
sq.mtr. te Service
Centre
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 52/140
34. Relevant provisions of Section 84 and 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are as under: "84. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title - (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the the time being in force, and i. where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidar or Asami, or ii. where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be, and shall also be liable to pay damages.
(2) ...
85. Failure to file suit under Section 84 or to execute obtained thereunder - If a suit is not brought under Section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for filing of the suit or execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall i. where the land forms part of the holding or a Bhumidar, become a Bhumidar thereof;
ii. where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof;
iii. in any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of [subsection(1) of Section 84] apply, become a Bhumidar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha.
35. As per serial no. 19 of schedule I, period of limitation for ejectment proceeding is 3 years.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 53/140
36. Conjoint reading of Section 84 and 85 of the Act noted above shows that as IPs were in possession of land in question without consent of Gaon Sabha and ejectment proceedings were not initiated by Gaon Sabha within limitation period, Gaon Sabha has no right to claim any compensation.
37. There is another hurdle in the path of Gaon Sabha in claiming compensation.
38. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the corporation with the previous approval of the Government declared revenue estate of village Palam (including old abadi) as urban. Therefore, revenue estate of village Palam ceased to be rural area. Said declaration was made in notification dated 24.10.2004 bearing no. F.33/Engg. TP(DP)/11424/94.
39. Notification dated 24.10.2004 is not on record. However, this being a LAC Court, in a large number of references, petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court, notification dated 24.10.1994. Therefore, judicial notice is being taken of the said notification.
40. Section 150(3) of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 provides as under: "[(3) If the whole of a Gaon Sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, by virtue of a notification under Section 507 of that Act, the Gaon Sabha constituted for that area shall thereupon stand dissolved and on such dissolution,
(a) all properties, movable and immovable, and all interests of whatsoever nature and kind therein including moneys held in Gaon Sabha Area Fund, vested in the Gaon Sabha immediately LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 54/140 before such dissolution, shall, with all rights of whatsoever description, used, enjoyed or possessed by such Gaon Sabha, vest in the Central Government.
(b) all duties, obligations and liabilities incurred, all contracts entered into and all matters and thingsengaged to be done by, with or for the Gaon Sabha before such dissolution shall be deemed to have been incurred, entered into or engaged to be done with or for the Central Government;
(c) all rates, taxes, ceases, rents and other charges due to the Gaon Sabha immediately before such dissolution shall be deemed to be due to the Central Government;
(d) all suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings instituted or which might have been instituted by or against the Gaon Sabha may be continued or instituted by or against the Union of India;
(e) the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to lands in such Gaon Sabha area, not being lands vested in the Central Government under clause (a), subject to the modification that references therein to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayat shall be construed as references to the Central Government;
(f) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 1, the provisions of Section 84, 85, 86, 86A and 87 and any other provision of this Act relating to ejectment of persons shall apply in relation to lands vested in the Central Government under clause (a) subject to the modification that references therein to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayat shall be constructed as references to the Central Government.]"
41. In the case of Prem vs. Union of India & Anr., L.A. Appeal No. 323/07 dated 28.08.2008, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that after urbanization of rural area, Gaon Sabha had ceased to exist. All properties of the Gaon Sabha vest in Central Government and in all such cases Union of India through the Ministry of Urban Development is to be put to notice by the Reference Court.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 55/140
42. On 28.10.09, notice was issued to Union of India. However, reason for issuing notice was because there are directions of the Hon'ble High Court in CCP No. 690702/2005 that this Court has to consider the admissibility of claims for demolition costs while deciding the claims for compensation for the lands in question. Beneficiaries, DDA was also put to notice. At a later stage, notice was also issued to Ministry of Urban Development. Counsel for Union of India had contested the case of IPs. However, no evidence was filed by Union of India for receiving compensation as successor of Gaon Sabha. Therefore, claim of Gaon Sabha who is IP No.68 is rejected. BDO is IP No. 211. No separate claim was filed by IP No. 211, BDO. Therefore, no relief can be given to IP No. 211 also.
43. Now, IP No. 69 to 203 have to prove their claims. There is no inter se dispute between IP No. 69 to 203.
44. Claims of IP No. 69 to 203 are (i) for enhancement of market value of land in question (ii) compensation for demolitions and repairs (iii) alternate shops and (iv) all statutory reliefs under Land Acquisition Act.
45. This is a dispute under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sub Section (2) of Section 31 reads as under: "31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court
- (1) ...
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 56/140 the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted.
(3) ...
46. What is referred to this Court is title dispute to receive the compensation. Objection with regard to amount of compensation is to be raised before Collector under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
47. Scope and power of the court while adjudicating upon a reference under section 18 or under Section 3031 of L A Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases.
48. The first case which is being considered is Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Appellant v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, Respondents : AIR 2003 SC 2303.
49. In this case the land in question was Government land which had been given on lease to one Shiv Narain Chaudhary, Laxman Narain Chandhary and others. As Government as well as lease holders claimed compensation, dispute was referred to civil court under section 30 of L A Act. The civil court found an application under section 18 of L. A. Act on behalf of Appellant Samiti on record. After making verification from special Land Acquisition officer, the civil court impleaded Appellant
- Samiti and proceeded in the matter as if there was a proper reference under section 18 of the Act and also enhanced the compensation. The 75% of compensation was directed to be paid to Appellant Samiti and 25% was directed to be paid to state Government. The High Court accepted the appeal of beneficiary and state Government and held that there was no LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 57/140 proper reference under section 18 of L A Act and enhancement of compensation by reference court was set aside. The other finding that the appellant Samiti would be entitled to 75% of amount of compensation and the balance 25% shall be given to state Government was affirmed.
50. The order of High Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it was held as under: "7. It is well established that the reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the land Acquisition Officer and that Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. of State, AIR 1930 PC 84. This was a case where the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the measurements of the land given in the award. Before the reference court, the claimant raised objection regarding the measurements of land given in award. Before the reference Court, the claimant raised objection regarding measurement of land and sought for fresh measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the claimed raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the privy council held thus:
"Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 58/140 a specific objection has been taken to the collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter" referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it."
8. In another case, namely, Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572, this court observed:
" Every tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which, it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances, its obvious duty is to see that these facts and circumstances exist to invest it with jurisdiction, and where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions under which the tribunal can function, it goes without saying that before that tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen. As observed by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan wherever jurisdiction is given to a court by an Act of Parliament and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in that Act, it is a universal principle that these terms must be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise."
9. In K.Kankarathanamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1964) 6 SCR 294, the Land Acquisition officer made a reference under Section 30 for LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 59/140 the apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the various claimants. Six of the appellants did not accept the award of the Land Acquisition officer and made application to him for referring the matter for determination by the court, but no reference was made by him pursuant to this application. When the matter came up before the court, it proceeded on the footing that the reference made to it was not merely limited to the apportionment of compensation but also with respect to the amount of compensation. No objection, however, was raised by the State before the reference court regarding the absence of reference. When the matter came up before the High Court, the Govt. Pleader raised this objection. Though the High Court allowed the plea to be raised before it, but ultimately it negatived the plea. The appellants contended before the High court that pursuant to the failure of the State to raise the plea before the Subordinate Judge as to the absence of a reference, the state must be deemed to have waived the point. Rejecting this contention, this court held :
".......................... the matter goes to the Court only upon a reference made by the collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the court is empowered to determine the objections made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Section 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the court to consideration of the contentions of the persons affected by the objection. These provisions thus leave no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. No doubt, the Land Acquisition officer has made a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but that reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the various claimants. Such a reference would certainly not invest the court with the LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 60/140 jurisdiction to consider a matter not directly connected with it. This is really not a mere technicality for as pointed out by the privy council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and others v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor wherever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with, the jurisdiction does not arise. This was, therefore, a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction and the failure of the State to object to the proceedings before the Court on the ground of an absence of reference in so far as the determination of compensation was concerned cannot amount to waiver or acquiescence. Indeed, when there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction, the defect cannot be waived nor can be cured by acquiescence."
10. In a recent decision of the Court in Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition officer, (2002) 9 SCC 426 it was held that the reference Court has no power to convert the reference under Section 30 into one under Section 18 of the Act at the instance of those who did not apply for reference earlier.
11. In the instant case, there was no reference by the SLAO under Section 18 of the Act and the AppellantSamiti was not before the SLAO. Even the application allegedly filed on 12101987 has rightly been characterized as suspicious as no mention has been made by the SLAO in the reference letter dated 12101987. In the absence of a proper reference, the Additional District judge had no jurisdiction to decide the question of enhancement of compensation. When such an objection was not referred to the Court, there was complete lack of jurisdiction. In our view, the decision of the High Court is correct and requires no interference. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 61/140
The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs".
51. The second case being considered is a very recent case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan wakf S.J. Syed Zakr undeen and Anr. v. Syed Zindasha and others: 2009(3) R.C.R. ( civil) 479.
52. In this case appellant was Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan wakf. The said properties were acquired by the state of Tamil Nadu. Appellant as a person interested took part in the proceedings for making an award. Being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation determined by LAC, he sought for enhancement therefore pursuant where to and furtherance where of the collector made a reference to the civil court. Prior there to the father of appellant no.2 filed a suit against Haji Syed Zehruddin for recovery of certain properties and damages. The said suit was decreed. In the reference proceedings the first respondent filed on application for getting himself impleaded as a party there in contending that he was interested in the subject matter of a part of the property acquired as in judgment in suit referred earlier it was held that the same should be treated as common properties and that certain religious obligations were to be performed from its income and the balance to be divided amongst the co sharers. Impleadment was also sought as it was alleged that Appellant No. 2 had not discharged the duties cast upon him. The application was allowed. A revision application was filed there against which was also dismissed and order was assailed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which held as under. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 62/140
11. 'The Act' is a selfcontained code. It not only provides for the mode and manner in which the acquisition proceedings are initiated but also the mode and manner in which the proceedings for making an award as also the mode and manner in which an application for reference by a person dissatisfied therewith is to be made.
12. A reference may be prayed for by a person interested in the proceeding. Ordinarily, he should be a party to the proceedings for making an award. He has to file an application for making a reference before the Collector of the District within the time specified thereunder. Such an application must be in writing and the reference to the civil court which may be prayed for before the collector would be in regard his objection as regards measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested.
The Reference was made only in respect of the amount of compensation. No reference has been made in regard to the right of persons to whom it was payable or apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The claim of the first respondent has been noticed by us. He has laid his claim on the title of the property. He has prayed for proper and effective implementation of the decree passed by a civil court. He alleged mismanagement of the Wakf property by the first appellant.
13. A reference court is not a court of original jurisdiction. It derives jurisdiction only in terms of the order of reference. The Act being a selfcontained code, the manner in which the reference is to be made and the statement required to be made by the collector has been specified in Section 19 of the Act. The lis between the LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 63/140 parties to the reference meaning thereby a person interested and the State is with regard to the quantum of compensation. No other question can be raised therein. The reference court exercises a limited jurisdiction. It derives its jurisdiction from the terms of reference. Even otherwise a civil court can direct impleadment of a third party in a suit only in a case where he is a proper or necessary party and otherwise have an interest in the subject matter of the suit. Even civil court ordinarily would not entertain a petition for impleadment of a third party in a lis pending before it which would enlarge the scope and ambit of the dispute between the parties. A Civil court would also not ordinarily implead a third party as a result whereof fresh dispute (s) either amongst the plaintiffs inter se claiming under the same title or the inter se between the defendants would be required to be determined.
14. In the event there is a dispute with regard with regard to the title or apportionment of the amount of compensation, a proper reference has to be made. Only when such a reference is made, the dispute between the claimant can be gone into and not in a reference proceeding of the nature referred to by the collector in the instant case.
18. In any view of the matter, it is well settled that no amount of consent can confer jurisdiction on a court when it has none. If the court had no jurisdiction, any order passed by it is a nullity. When the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, the procedural provision of estoppel, waiver or resjudicata shall also not apply".
53. In the end, the impugned order was set aside.
54. Third judgment which is relevant for decision of this LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 64/140 application is P.K. Sree Kantan & Ors versus P. Sreekumaran Nair & Ors, 2007 AIR (S.C.) 516. Following directions passed by Hon'ble High court of Kerala were assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "In the light of the principles as laid down in the above decisions and in the absence of any reference made on the question regarding the extent of the land acquired from each of the claimants and in absence of any dispute regarding the apportionment of the amount and in view of the fact that the only question that is referred by the District collector is regarding the claim for the enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired as shown in the award, we find that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the extent of the land acquired form each of the claimant."
55. Affirming the order of High Court, in para 11 it was held: "11. The reference court derive jurisdiction from the reference made. References under section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different from each other. The decree in terms of Section 18 is different from the one in terms of Section 30. Remedy available in terms of Section 55 of the Act is against a decree. The question whether reference Court can deal with the question covered by Section 30 of the Act in a reference under Section 18 of the Act and vice versa has been the subject matter of judicial determination. In (Rai) Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur Vs. Secry. of State (AIR 1930 PC 64) it was held that the jurisdiction of the courts under the Act is a special one and strictly limited to the terms of Section 18, 20 and 21. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Therefore, it is certain that when the LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 65/140 only objection taken is to the amount of compensation that alone is the matter referred and the court has no jurisdiction to determine or consider anything beyond it."
56. Further in para 15 it is held as under: "15. Above being the position, the High Court's view that it was impermissible to deal with the matter covered under Section 30 of the Act while dealing with a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act is irreversible."
57. In the case of Sharda Devi V. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 942 also it is held in para 37 that : "37. The sweep of jurisdiction of court to determine the disputes is also statutory and is controlled by the bounds created by section 17 or 30 where under the reference has been made to the court. The power has to be exercised to the extent to which it has been conferred by the statute and on the availability of pre existing conditions on the availability of which and which alone the power can be exercised."
58. Therefore, this Court has neither any jurisdiction to decide the question of enhancement of compensation nor to decide claims of IPs for costs and demolitions.
59. However, cases of IP No. 166 Shri Inder Singh Solanki son of Shri Sardar Singh, IP No. 146 Dr. Umesh Saroha son of Shri Mool Chand, IP No. 139 Shri Dhir Singh son of Shri Dil Chand, IP No. 98 Shri Om Prakash son of Shri Ram Kishan, IP No. 71 Shri Satish Kumar son of Shri Mangal Dass, IP No. 173 Smt. Chhoti Devi wife of Shri Mala Ram, IP LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 66/140 No. 163 Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal, IP No. 90 Smt. Sama Kaur wife of Shri Chhagan Lal, IP No. 88 Smt. Santosh wife of Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, IP No. 80 Shri Ram Avtar son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal and IP No. 168 Shri Lallu Ram son of Shri Mangu Ram (i.e. 11 IPs) are on different footing.
60. The above noted 11 IPs were petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 690702/2001 which was decided on 15.03.2007.
61. Relevant extracts from order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the contempt application are already noted above.
62. Hon'ble High Court noted the contention of counsel for DDA that LAC has become functous officio but passed directions to this reference court to consider 'the admissibility of claims' for demolition costs while deciding the claims for compensation for the lands in question.
63. It is relevant to note that in para 2 of order dated 15.03.2007, the Hon'ble High Court noted that there were 69 petitioners in WP(C) No. 8672.8740/2004 but only 14 of them had filed contempt application.
64. In para 10 of order dated 15.03.2007, directions are with regard to 'Petitioners herein'. Said order has attained finality. Therefore, only with regard to 11 IPs named above, claims for demolitions would be considered in addition to claims for compensation for land.
65. DDA and Union of India through LAC have contested LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 67/140 the claims of IPs with regard to compensation for demolitions and repairs.
66. Objections of Union of India and DDA are same in the case of all the IPs.
67. Union of India has taken a preliminary objection that claim of IPs for repairs and demolitions is not maintainable in a reference under Section 3031 of L.A. Act because reference under Section 30 of Act relates to dispute about the apportionment and to whom the payment of compensation is to be given and under Section 31 of Act Collector has to pay compensation to person entitled thereto according to the award unless there is no one competent to alienate the land. Only when there is dispute over title or apportionment, Collector has to deposit the amount of the compensation in the Reference Court. It is therefore stated that "so the orders of the High Court in the petition under Section 30 and 31 of the L.A. Act cannot be referred / applicable to the present facts of the case".
68. It is also stated that relief claimed by IPs can be claimed in a reference under Section 18 of the Act and cannot be claimed in a reference under Section 3031 of L.A. Act.
69. Union of India / Collector has raised an objection that valuation reports relied upon by IPs are prepared by valuer without notice to the Collector. It is alleged that valuer was called at the instance of IPs and therefore said valuation report is not reliable.
70. Lastly, objection is also taken that the IPs have purchased the land on power of attorney which does not transfer title of land in favour of said purchasers. As agreements to sell relied upon by IPs are not LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 68/140 registered and as land is not mutated in the names of IPs in revenue records, IPs are not entitled to any relief for demolition and repairs.
71. On merits, it is stated that land in question was agricultural land and could not have been used for residential or commercial purposes until the user of the land is got changed from government agencies after depositing the demanded charges. It is also stated that no one can be given benefit in a reference for claim who is guilty of violation of rules, terms and conditions of master plan and building bye laws. Since construction was not made by seeking approval as per sanction plans, relief claimed by IPs was opposed.
72. Reference to orders of Hon'ble High Court is made as "so far as the order of the High Court of Delhi is concerned is not applicable in the said case because the same cannot be referred in the claim petition under Section 3031 of L.A. Act."
73. In the written statement of DDA, it is stated that claim for demolition / repairs is not permissible in a reference under Section 3031 of L.A. Act; IPs are not the recorded owners; reference is barred by limitation; construction of shops etc was without sanctioned plans and cannot be used for residential or commercial purposes. So far as orders of Hon'ble High Court are concerned, it is alleged that the said order is not applicable in the said matter because the same cannot be referred to in the claim under Section 3031 of L.A. Act.
74. So far as structures are concerned, DDA has relied upon observations of LAC that since only legal / authorised structures can be LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 69/140 taken into consideration for compensation and as none of the constructions is supported by Sanctioned Plan of MCD / NDMC, illegal construction is to be ignored while assessing the market value thereof.
75. So far as objections of contesting respondents that in reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, only question to be decided is titled dispute, same is already discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs.
76. Objections visavis transfer of land without registered sale deed, raising constructions without sanctioned plan and preparation of valuation reports by valuers of IPs behind the back of Collector are the only three objections to be dealt with before taking up claims of IP No. 69 to
203.
77. In the case of Rama Devi versus Pooran Chand Aggarwal: 151 (2001) DLT 230, it is held that "11. Again it is well settled that sales in Delhi through power of attorney, coupled with payment receipts, delivery of possession and other connected documents are well recognised in this city. In Asha M. Jain versus Canara Bank and Ors. [94 (2001) DLT 841], it was held, "The power of attorney sales and their effect has been consideration in Kuldip Singh versus Surinder Singh, 76 (1998) DLT 236: 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 20. The learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that power of attorney sale in Delhi is common mode of sale of immovable property to get over the legislative restrictions of transfer of properties. The power of attorney is for consideration and bargain is followed by delivery of possession to complete the transaction. Further to prevent arbitrary cancellation, will and affidavit about renouncing rights are taken. The Court repelled the contention that since sub lease with the Government prohibited transfer, such transfer was opposed to public LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 70/140 policy, since in the view of the Court, public policy gets modified with the march of time. The Court recognized the fact that restrictions to sell made everyone dishonest and the power of attorney method was devised to get over the restrictions. In fact the Government has partially recognized this since even power of attorney buyers can apply for conversion into free hold on paying penalty. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Chattenatha Karayalar versus Central Bank of India and Ors. : AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1856 and Smt. Indira Kaurand Ors. Versus Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor : AIR 1988 SC 1074; where it was held that in order to arrive at a real nature of transaction; it is open to the Court to look into the attendant and surrounding circumstances and contemporary documents. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the observations in the case of Usha Malhotra versus G.S. Uppal in 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 223 dealing with the issue of construction agreement which are camouflage for agreement to sell. We have considered this aspect taking into consideration these judgments and we are in agreement with the view that the concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction. These transactions are different from mere agreement to sell since such transactions are accompanied with other documents including general power of attorney, special power of attorney and Will and affidavits and full consideration is paid."
78. Similar view was taken in Shri Jagdish Chander Mehra versus Smt. Kusum Gupta (supra), Shikha Properties (P) Ltd. Versus S. Bhagwant Singh and Ors. : 1998 V AD (Delhi) 28, Ajit Narain versus Shri Arti Singh and Ors. : 1999 V AD Delhi 932, Veer Bala Gulati versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.: (WP 1999/2003) decided on 7th April, 2003, Leela Goel versus Prem Sagar : 2006 (91) DRJ 683 and Shri O.P. Kohli versus Shri Krishan Kumar Gaur :137 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 71/140 (2007) DLT 414.
79. Reliance can be placed on Vinod Kumar Sharma versus Seema Seth : 2009(2) AD(Delhi) 782, Gurbaksh Singh versus Government of NCT of Delhi : AIR 2006 Delhi 76 to give weightage to sale transaction by power of attorney etc.
80. In Mehtab Singh Balyan versus Nirmala & Others:
CM (M) 1642/2007 dated 18.12.2007 in para 8 it is held that: "8. Before concluding I must note that unauthorized colonization is creating a problem in Courts. Possessory disputes are very difficult to resolve. The reason is that law requires evidence to be tested with reference to some admitted position at the site, when the dispute relates to possession;
meaning thereby, rival versions are tested on some authentic factual situation at the site. Pertaining to unauthorized colonization the purity of evidence can never be tested for the reason everything is done illegally and there is no reference point where from the Court can test the purity of the evidence led by respective parties. Unfortunately, the rule of judge prevails. He who is in possessing retains the same."
81. Therefore, the objection of respondents that IPs do not have registered sale deeds in their favour and they should not be given the compensation is rejected. It is already noticed that recorded owners are ex parte. They are not interested to claim compensation because they know that they have sold away the land decades ago to different IPs. The respondents have admittedly taken possession of the land in question. It does not lie in the mouth of Government to say that no interested person be given the compensation in spite of taking of possession of land even if original recorded owners are ex parte. It is noteworthy that there is no inter LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 72/140 se dispute between IP No. 69 to 203 on one hand and IP No. 1 to 67 on the other hand.
82. The next objection of respondents against release of compensation for structures is that the land in question was totally agricultural in nature and cannot be used for residential or commercial purposes unless and until the user of the land is got changed by taking permission from the Government after depositing the demanded charges. It is also objected that no person can be allowed to get the claim by violating the rules, terms and conditions of zonal and master plan and building bye laws. Objection of respondents is that since constructions were not raised as per sanctioned plan, IPs are not entitled to get any relief towards demolition and repairs.
83. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Rajakishore Das AIR 1996 SC 1508, respondent had constructed the building without permission of any authority. It was held that the government is entitled to have the unauthorized construction demolished, unless the owner himself voluntarily demolishes and takes the value of the building structure as salvage material. It was further held that authorities are not bound by such construction and the state is not bound to pay compensation of the value of such a building constructed unauthorizedly.
84. In the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2010 (174) DLT 355, certain compensation was awarded in contravention of Section 24 of the Act. According to respondents, no compensation ought to have been awarded to the petitioner in respect of said structures. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 73/140 Therefore review of award was done and fresh review award was passed which was challenged before Hon'ble High Court.
85. It was held that nothing is placed on record to show that structure existing at the time of acquisition was in accordance with Sanction Plan of MCD or that construction was done as per Building Bye Laws. Petitioners can not take advantage of their own wrong. Resultantly, writ petition was dismissed.
86. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and Ors. Civil appeal No. 3838/10 dated 28.04.2010 it is again reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court that Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and factors which are to be considered or not to be considered by the court while determining the market value of the acquired land. It is not permissible for authorities to go beyond the scope and purview of the provisions or the pre requisites stated in these provisions for determination of the market value of the land. Expression shall in Section 24 of L A Act would have to be construed as mandatory and not directory because the language of Section 24 of L A Act mandates that the court shall not take into consideration the matters indicated in firstly to eighthly of Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 has a list of negative factors visavis the land under acquisition which is to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation.
87. At the time of arguments, a specific query was raised to Shri A.N. Aggarwal the learned counsel for IPs in whose favour orders are LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 74/140 passed by Hon'ble High Court in contempt application that this reference court while deciding compensation for land in question will also consider admissibility of claims for demolition costs that as the land in question was agricultural, there is a doubt with regard to claim for residential houses and shops. Learned counsel for IPs had requested for adjournment to clarify.
88. However, on the next date, counsel for IPs only filed photocopy of form of supply of information under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 27.12.2006.
89. This reply is given by Shri V.K. Bugga, Chief Town Planner to one Shri Sunil Bhardwaj. This reply answers 10 queries of the applicant. Reply at serial no. 8 is as under: "8. Palam Colony - Raj Nagar I and II and Sad Nagar I and II, is an unauthorized regularized colonies and East of Kailash and Green Park are planned and approved colony."
90. Shri Sunil Bhardwaj to whom this letter is addressed is not one of the interested persons before this Court. In spite of specific query of this Court, IPs did not deem it appropriate to summon witness from the office of Chief Town Planner to prove reply dated 27.12.2006 and to prove that land in question is now regularized colony.
91. There was no application to lead secondary evidence to enable this Court to rely upon photocopy of reply under Right to Information Act that colony in question is now regularized colony.
92. It is difficult to grant relief to IPs for their claims for demolitions and repairs in absence of any evidence that the structures which got demolished during acquisition proceedings were part of regularized LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 75/140 colony. To that extent, the observations of the Collector in the Award and objections of Union of India in the written statement are upheld.
93. It is already noted that Union of India had itself placed on record valuation reports prepared by PWD with regard to 179 structures. Those reports are Ex. R1 to R179. There is some variation in the valuation reports so got prepared by PWD and valuation reports prepared by Government approved valuer engaged by IPs. However, in the light of observations that IPs have not proved their entitlement for cost of structures there is no need to answer the question which of the two valuation reports should be accepted and which report should be rejected. That is now only an academic issue. Therefore, this question is left open.
94. Lastly, the only question to be answered at this stage, claim of IP No. 69 to 203 for compensation for land.
95. Claim of IP No. 69 : IP No. 69 are Shri Saras Aggarwal and Shri Sohan Lal, both sons of Shri Prem Chand Aggarwal. An application was filed on behalf of IP No. 69 on 11th October, 2006 supported by an affidavit that the name of applicant be deleted as IP No. 69 from the list of claimants. On 28th November, 2007, statement of counsel for IP No. 69 was recorded who stated that on instructions of IP No. 69 claim of IP No. 69 is not pressed. Therefore, no relief can be given to IP No. 69 as the claim of IP No. 69 was not pressed.
96. Claim of IP No. 70 :
IP No. 70 is Shri Rajender Singh son of Shri Shyam Singh. IP No. 70 had filed his claim in the nature of an LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 76/140 application under Section 151 of CPC along with 11 other IPs.
97. IP No. 70 has prayed for compensation towards demolition and repairs as well as for compensation for land. As noted earlier, claim for demolition and repairs has been turned down. Only claim for compensation for land is to be considered.
98. This IP has stated that out of love and affection towards his wife Smt. Gyandi Devi, IP No. 70 had purchased built up shop no. 1 measuring 121/2' x 223/4' feet and height 131/2 feet out of Khasra No. 65/13 of Revenue Estate of village Palam which was part of property no. 441, main road Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. He has further stated that he was carrying on business in the name and style of Nand Bakery. Registered GPA, registered Will, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit in the name of Smt. Gyandi Devi were exhibited as C70/1 collectively. Licence given by MCD to run Bakery was exhibited as C70/2 and electricity bill in the name of Shri Rajender Singh was exhibited as C70/3. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 86728740/04 was exhibited as C70/4. Details furnished by the office of ADM, demarcating the area was exhibited as C70/5. In this demarcation report the area which was affected by acquisition proceedings is shown as 8.30 sq. mtr. at serial no. 6 of the list. Lastly, photocopy of valuation report was exhibited as C70/6.
99. He has also filed an affidavit of Smt. Gyandi Devi stating that she has no objection in case compensation is released in favour of Shri Rajender Singh.
100. On the directions of this Court, LAC has filed a chart LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 77/140 indicating Kh. No., name of claimant, area in sq. mtr. and area in biswa which is part of land in question.
101. At serial no. 6 of that chart, the Collector has stated that in Kh. No. 65/13, 8.30 sq. mtr. of land (0.196 biswa) in the name of Nand Bakery stands acquired.
102. Therefore, IP No. 70 has shown that he is entitled for compensation for 8.30 sq. mtr. of land.
103. Claim of IP No. 70 is, therefore, partly allowed.
104. Claim of IP No. 71 :
IP No. 71 is Shri Satish Kumar son of late Shri Mangal Dass. This IP has also filed his claim in the nature of application under Section 151 of CPC. He has claimed compensation towards demolition and repairs as well as compensation for land. As compensation for demolition and repairs is already turned down, only claim which is to be considered is for 19.74 sq. mtr. of land.
105. Case of this IP is that his father has purchased 200 sq. yds. of land bearing Municipal No. WZ505 by way of registered sale deed on 25.04.1958. Sale deed is Ex. C4/1. It is stated that the only other class one legal heir of Shri Mangal Dass was IP No. 71 and there is no other class one legal heir of late Shri Mangal Dass. Original death certificate of Shri Mangal Dass Gaba was exhibited as C4/2. Property stands mutated in the name of IP No. 71 in the records of MCD and mutation order is exhibit C4/3. Receipts of property tax paid by IP No.71 are Ex. C4/3 collectively and water and telephone bills are exhibited as C4/4 and C4/5 respectively. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 86728740/04 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 78/140 was exhibited as C4/6 and valuation report was exhibited as C4/8. In the demarcation report prepared by the Collector reference to IP No.71 appears at serial no. 22 where it is shown that 19.4 sq. mtr. of the land in question was affected by acquisition proceedings.
106. In the chart prepared by the ADM giving Kh. No., name of occupants, area in sq. mtr. and area in biswa, it is mentioned that 19.74 sq. mtr. of land (0.468 biswa) in the occupation of Satish Kumar Gaba is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
107. Therefore, IP No. 71 has shown his entitlement to recover compensation for 19.74 sq. mtr.of land. The claim of IP No. 71 is, therefore, partly allowed.
108. Claim of IP No. 72 :
IP No. 72 is Smt. Usha wife of Shri Shanker Lal. This IP had filed an application dated 11.10.2006 stating therein that her name be deleted from the list of claimants. Application is supported by an affidavit. Statement of counsel was recorded on 28.11.2007 in this regard. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 72 is dismissed and it is held that nothing is payable to IP No. 72.
109. Claim of IP No. 73 : IP No. 73 is Shri Kailash Chander Aggarwal son of Shri Virdhi Chander Aggarwal. This IP has not filed any claim. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. In absence of any claim, no relief can be given to IP No. 73.
110. Claim of IP No. 74 : IP No. 74 is Shri Suraj Bhan son of Shri Ram Lal. This IP has not filed any claim. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. In absence of any claim, no relief can be LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 79/140 given to IP No. 74.
111. Claim of IP No. 75 :
IP No. 75 is Shri Prabhu Dayal son of Shri Gobind Narayan Sharma. This IP has not filed any claim. It was noticed by the learned predecessor of this Court on 17.11.2007 that all the IPs are served. In absence of any claim, no relief can be given to IP No. 75.
112. Claim of IP No. 76 : IP No. 76 is Shri Laxmi Narayan son of Shri Sohan Lal. This IP has not filed any claim. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. In absence of any claim, no relief can be given to IP No. 76.
113. Claim of IP No. 77 : IP No. 77 is Shri Harnam Singh son of Shri Jivan Singh. This IP has filed his claim petition and has stated that he is husband of owner of land acquired by Union of India. He has relied upon registered sale deed dated 24.07.1998 executed by Shri Harnam Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Agya Pal Kaur with regard to 22.8 sq. yds. of land. Valuation report is exhibited as PW1/3. As per valuation report filed on record as Ex. R35 and as per chart filed on record by the Collector, Shri Harnam Singh was found in occupation of 14.03 sq. mtr. of land (0.332 biswa) where he was carrying on business of in the name of Sardar Saree Centre.
114. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 77 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 14.03 sq. mtr. of land. However, this compensation will be released subject to filing of no objection of Smt. Agya Pal Kaur.
115. Claim of IP No. 78 :
IP No.78 is Shri Ved Gopal LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 80/140 Ghothwal son of late Shri Mangal Ram. This IP has relied upon registered sale deed dated 20.04.1965 executed in his favour as Ex. PW1/2. As per this sale deed, this IP had purchased 102 sq. yds. of land forming part of rectangle no. 65 and killa no. 12. This IP has claimed compensation for 7.80 sq. yds.
116. Collector has referred to this IP in valuation report Ex. R8 as well as at serial no. 8 of the chart where he has indicated that 6.30 sq. mtr. of land (0.149 biswa) was acquired where this IP was the occupant. Therefore, IP No. 78 is held entitled to receive compensation for 6.30 sq. mtr. of land. Claim of IP No. 78 is partly allowed.
117. Claim of IP No. 79 : IP No. 79 is Shri Naim Chand son of Shri Mohan Lal Jain. This IP has not filed any claim. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. In absence of any claim, no relief can be given to IP No. 79.
118. Claim of IP No. 80 : IP No. 80 is Shri Ram Avtar son of Shri Kanehiya Lal. This IP had filed his claim petition in the form of application under Section 151 of CPC. He has claimed compensation towards demolition and repairs and towards compensation for land in question. For the reasons recorded earlier, the claim for demolition and repairs is rejected. Only the claim for compensation for land is to be considered. This IP has relied upon registered sale deed dated 21.12.1970 executed by Shri Omkar Nath as per which land in Kh. No. 65/10/2 measuring 160 sq. yds. was sold in favour of IP No. 80. Sale deed is Ex. as CA10/1. Receipt of property tax is Ex. CA10/2. Electricity bill is Ex. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 81/140 CA10/3. Copy of judgment passed in WP(C) No. 86728740/04 is Ex. C10/4. Demarcation report is Ex. C10/5. Valuation report is Ex. C10/6. This IP has claimed compensation for 31.04 sq. mtr. of land.
119. In the demarcation report Ex. R9, the area affected by acquisition proceedings is shown as 14.60 sq. mtr. Same area is shown in the chart prepared by the ADM on the directions of this Court after acquisition proceedings were over.
120. In view of the fact that this IP did not file any objection to Ex. R9 or to the demarcation report of the LAC and in absence of any other evidence to show that land measuring 31.5 sq. mtr. was affected by acquisition proceedings, this IP is held entitled for compensation for 14.06 sq. mtr. of land. Claim of IP No. 80 is, therefore, partly allowed.
121. Claim of IP No. 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 : IP No. 81 are Smt. Vidya Sharma and Shri Kamlesh Sharma, IP No. 82 is Shri Ravinder Sharma son of Shri Ghanshyam Das, IP No. 83 Shri Ram Avtar Yadav son of Shri Tanwar Singh, IP No. 84 is Shri Omprakash son of Shri Kanehiya Lal and IP No. 85 is Shri Suresh Chand son of Shri Tara Chand. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. These IPs have not filed any claim petition and are therefore given no relief.
122. Claim of IP No. 86 :
IP No. 86 is Shri Devki Nandan Chadha son of Shri Ram Prakash. This IP has stated that he had purchased property no. WZ507A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi out of Kh. No. 65/11 ad measuring about 7.6 x 15 sq. yds. on 25.07.1990 vide General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit from its earlier owner. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 82/140 Registered GPA was exhibited as IP 86/A, agreement was exhibited as IP 86/B, affidavit was exhibited IP as 86/C and registered receipt was exhibited as IP 86/D. Photocopy of electricity bill of due date 06.12.2007 and property tax receipt for the year, 200405 of MCD was also placed on record but the same was neither exhibited nor marked. As per exhibit RW1/32, IP No. 86 was in occupation of 8.84 sq. mtr. of land which was going to be affected vide acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in the chart filed by the Collector where particulars of land affected by acquisition proceedings are given in sq. mtrs. as well as biswa, at serial no. 32 it is mentioned that land measuring 8.84 sq. mtr. in occupation of Shri Devki Nandan is affected by acquisition proceedings.
123. Therefore, claim of IP No. 86 is partly allowed and he is held entitled to compensation for 8.84 sq. mtr. of land.
124. Claim of IP No. 87 :
IP No. 87 is Shri Puroshotam Kumar son of late Shri Bansi Lal. He has stated that he has purchased property No. WZ 507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi out of Kh. No. 65/10/1 measuring 7.6 x 15 sq. yds. in the year 1995 vide General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit from the earlier owner. He has relied upon GPA as Ex. IP 87/A, agreement to sale and purchase as Ex. IP 87/B, Affidavit as Ex. IP 87/C and receipt as Ex. IP 87/D1 and 2.
125. As per Ex. RW1/37, 6.86 sq. mtr. of the land of IP No. 87 was going to be affected in the acquisition proceedings. In the chart filed by the ADM indicating extent of land acquired in the acquisition proceedings, at serial No. 37 it is stated that 6.86 sq. mtr. of land in the LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 83/140 occupation of IP No. 87 in Kh. No. 65/10/1 was acquired.
126. Therefore, claim of IP No. 87 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 6.86 sq. mtr. of land.
127. Claim of IP No. 88 : IP No. 88 is Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal. This IP has filed an affidavit that her share of compensation for 6.20 sq. mtr. of land be given to her husband Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal. Said affidavit is Ex. IPW88/2. Case of this IP is that he had purchased property bearing No. WZ454D, out of Kh. No. 65/13/1 village Palam. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement for sale, registered receipt, will, affidavit all dated 20.06.1988 executed by Khajani Devi and Budh Ram in favour of Santosh Rani were exhibited as Ex. C9/1 colly. and GPA, agreement for sale, registered receipt, will and affidavit executed by Mam Kaur in favour of Santosh Rani dated 28.06.1988 were exhibited as Ex.C9/2 colly. Licence given by the MCD for running commercial unit was exhibited as C9/3. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.05.2004 was exhibited as C9/4, demarcation report of ADM was exhibited as C9/5 and valuation report of the valuer was exhibited as C9/6.
128. Claim of IP No. 88 is admitted by the Collector inasmuch as at serial no. 7 of the demarcation report, it is conceded that land measuring 6.2 sq. mtr. where shop in the name of Raj Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar was running is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
129. Therefore, claim of IP No. 88 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 6.2 sq. mtr. of land. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 84/140
130. Claim of IP No. 89 :
IP No. 89 is Shri Mahender Pal son of Shri Braham Dutt. This IP has stated that he had purchased property no. WZ 507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, out of Kh. No. 65/10/1 measuring 7.6 x 15 sq. yds. in the year, 1992. Reliance was placed on general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit all dated 27.03.1992 which were exhibited as Ex. IP 89/A to C. Property tax receipts dated 18.08.2006 and 23.08.2006 was exhibited as IP No. 89/D (12), ad hoc registration certificate given by the MCD on 12.01.2007 as Ex. IP 89/E, electricity bill is Ex. IP 89/F and site plan is Ex. IP 89/G.
131. Claim of IP No. 89 is admitted by the Collector inasmuch as at serial no. 39 of the demarcation report, it is conceded that land measuring 7.32 sq. mtr. where IP No. 89 was in occupation is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
132. Therefore, claim of IP No. 89 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 7.32 sq. mtr. of land.
133. Claim of IP No. 90 : IP No. 90 is Smt. Sama Kaur wife of Shri Kali Ram. This IP has stated that she had purchased property No. WZ 506, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, out of Kh. No. 65/12 measuring 150 sq. yds. vide registered sale deed dated 14.07.1965. Registered sale deed was exhibited as C 8/1 and property tax receipt dated 30.06.2006 was exhibited as C 8/2. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.05.2004 was exhibited as C 8/3, demarcation report of ADM was exhibited as C8/4 and valuation report of the valuer was exhibited as C8/5.
134. Claim of IP No. 90 is admitted by the Collector LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 85/140 inasmuch as at serial no. 23 and 24 of the demarcation report, it is conceded that land measuring 5.88 sq. mtr. and 9.72 sq. mtr. totaling 15.60 sq. mtr. of land where IP No. 90 was in occupation is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
135. Therefore, claim of IP No. 90 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 15.60 sq. mtr. of land.
136. Claim of IP No. 91 : IP No. 91 is Shri Rajender Kumar son of Shri Bansi Lal. This IP has stated that he had purchased property No. WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, out of Kh. No. 65/10/1 measuring 7.6 x 16 sq. yds. in the year 1995. Reliance was placed on general power of attorney, agreement to sell, both dated 14.03.1995 which were exhibited as Ex. IP 91/A to B. Property tax receipt dated 08.07.2006 was exhibited as IP No. 91/C, registration certificate given by the MCD was exhibited as Ex. IP 91/D, electricity bill is Ex. IP 91/E and voter card is Ex. IP 91/F and site plan is Ex. IP 91/G.
137. Claim of IP No. 91 is admitted by the Collector inasmuch as at serial no. 36 of the demarcation report, it is conceded that land measuring 6.86 sq. mtr. where IP No. 91 was in occupation is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
138. Therefore, claim of IP No. 91 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 6.86 sq. mtr. of land.
139. Claim of IP No. 92 : IP No. 92 is Shri Vijay Kumar son of late Shri Jagdish Chander. This IP has stated that his father had purchased property No. WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, out of Kh. No. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 86/140 65/10/1 measuring 7.5 x 15 sq. yds. in the year 1992. Reliance was placed on agreement to sell and affidavit both dated 01.01.1992 which were exhibited as Ex. IP 92/A and B. It is stated that Shri Jagdish Chander executed a registered Will in favour of IP No. 92. The Will is exhibited as IP 92/C. Site plan is exhibited as IP 92/D.
140. Claim of IP No. 92 is admitted by the Collector inasmuch as at serial no. 38 of the demarcation report, it is conceded that land measuring 6.86 sq. mtr. where IP No. 92 was in occupation is affected by the acquisition proceedings.
141. Therefore, claim of IP No. 92 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 6.86 sq. mtr. of land.
142. Claim of IP No. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 : IP No.93 is Shri Babu Lal son of Shri Sohan Lal, IP No. 94 is Shri Kanehiya Lal son of Shri Prahlad Lal, IP No. 95 is Shri Kailash Bhardwaj son of Shri R.C. Bhardwaj, IP No. 96 is Shri Kanwar Dayal son of Shri Kanehiya Lal, IP No. 97 is Shri Suresh Chand son of Shri Tara Chand, IP No.98 is Shri Om Prakash son of Shri Ram Kishan, IP No. 99 is Shri Mahesh Kumar, IP No. 100 is Smt. Chander Kala wife of Shri Santosh Kumar, IP No. 101 is Smt. Sunita Singh daughter of Shri Dalpal, IP No. 102 is Shri Santosh Kumar son of Shri Jai Bhagwan Solanki, IP No. 103 is Shri Mahavir and IP No. 104 is Shri Rambir Singh son of Shri Bharat Singh. Vakalatnama of IP No. 100 in favour of Sh. Vishal Yadav was sought to be withdrawn by counsel vide application dated 07.03.2007. Furthermore, IP No. 9395 and 104 were proceeded exparte on 27.02.2006. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 87/140 These IPs have not preferred to file any claim petition and therefore no relief can be given to these IPs.
143. Claim of IP No.105 : IP No.105 is Sh. Kesho Ram, son of Sh. Roshan. Case of this IP is that he had purchased one Bigha of land out of Khasra no.69/7 alongwith Daya Dutt Vashisht, son of Sriram, Mahavir, son of Suraj Singh vide registered sale deed dated 02.6.1978.
144. It is further stated that after purchasing the land in question, the same was partitioned and the area which fell to the share of deponent was measuring about 300 sq. yds. out of which this IP transferred about 148 sq. yds. of land in favour of his son Satbir Singh by executing usual documents of transfer, i.e. agreement to sell, power of attorney, receipt of consideration, affidavit etc. Sh. Satbir Singh is IP no.157 in this reference petition. IP no.105 has stated that he has no objection if compensation for the share of IP no.157 Sh. Satbir Singh is given to him and compensation falling in the share of Sh. Kesho Ram is given to said Sh. Kesho Ram.
145. Smt. Sunita Jain, ld. Counsel for IP no.105 and 157 has filed written notes with regard to shares of Sh. Kesho Ram and Sh. Satbir Singh. Relying upon the award passed by the Collector, it is stated that share of recorded owners no.54 to 57 comes to Rs.6,05,564/ for 11 biswa and for each recorded owner, share comes to Rs.1,51,391/. It is stated that share of Sh. Kesho Ram for 8 biswa of acquired land of Khasra no.69/7 would be Rs.1,46,803/ and as he had sold half share to his son, the share of IP no.105 Kesho Ram and share of IP no.157 Sh. Satbir Singh would be Rs. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 88/140 73,401/ each.
146. The case of IP no.105 is also proved by way of demarcation report filed on record by the Collector vide entry no.78 where it is stated that 8.32 sq. meters of land in occupation of Kesho Ram was affected in Khasra no.69/7 by present acquisition proceedings. Ex.RW1/78 is the valuation report prepared and filed on record by PWD on the directions of LAC. This report also confirms that 8.32 sq. meters of land belonging to the IP no.105 was affected in acquisition proceedings in question.
147. Resultantly, claim of IP no.105 Sh. Kesho Ram is partly allowed for compensation for 8.32 sq. meters of land.
148. IP No.106, 107, 108, 109: IP no.106 is Sh. Virender Solanki, son of Sh. Bharat Singh, IP no.107 is Sh. Satpal, son of Sh. Bharat Singh, IP no.108 is Sh. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, and IP no.109 is Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, son of Sh. Sita Ram Gupta. None of these IPs have filed any claim petition. IP No. 107 and 109 were proceeded exparte on 27.02.2006. Therefore, no relief can be given to any of these IPs.
149. Claim of IP No.110 : IP no.110 is Smt. Basanti Devi, wife of Sh. Bhim Singh. Case of this IP no.110 is that she had purchased vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1969 an area measuring 160 sq. yds. from the original recorded Bhoomidar. Sale deed in question is Ex.PW1/2, election ICard of Smt. Basanti Devi is Ex.PW1/3, valuation report is Ex.PW1/4, site plan is Ex.PW1/5 and photographs of the affected shop are Ex.PW1/6.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 89/140
150. Although this IP has claimed compensation for 37.93 sq. meters of land but her name is neither appearing in the demarcation list prepared by the Collector nor in the list of valuation reports got prepared by the Collector through PWD. In absence of reference to IP no.110 in the demarcation report it is doubtful whether she had lost any portion of her property. As a result, claim of this IP is rejected. Unfortunately, no counsel had appeared to assist the court for deciding this reference and in the absence of any assistance, it could not be ascertained from valuation reports filed by Collector which are Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/179 or from the demarcation report of the Collector whether any land of this IP was affected by acquisition proceedings.
151. Claim of IP No.111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 121 : IP No.111 is Sh. S.K.Mittal, son of Sh. Khushi Ram, IP No.112 is Sh. Mahender Kumar Sharma, son of Sh. Ranjit Singh, IP No.113 is Sh. Bishen Swaroop, son of Sh. Ram Dhan Mittal, IP No.114 is Sh. Suresh Chand, son of Sh. Badri Prasad, IP No.115 is Sh. Mahender Kumar Goel, IP No.116 is Sh. Dayanand, son of Sh. Dasi Lal, IP No.117 is Smt. Vinita, daughter of Sh. Dal Chand, IP No.118 is Smt. Shailesh Aggarwal, wife of Sh. Anil Kumar, IP No.119 is Smt. Renu Aggarwal, wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar and IP No.120 are Yogesh Kumar and Sushila Devi, wife of Sh. Laxmi Chand, IP No.121 is Smt. Manbhawati Devi, wife of Sh. Chotey Lal. No counsel appeared for these IPs. These IPs have not filed any claim petition and have not brought on record any evidence to get the relief. So much so, counsel for IP no.112 who is Sh. Mahender Kumar Sharma had LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 90/140 moved an application stating that IP no.112 is not interested to claim any compensation. Same is the case with regard to IP no.120. In the case of this IP no.120, an affidavit was filed by Sh. Yogesh, son of Sh. Laxmi Chand stating that IP no.120 is his mother Smt. Sushila and property of IP no.120 was not at all adversely affected when the land in question was acquired vide award no.7/0506. Moreover, IP No. 111114 and IP No. 116119 were proceeded exparte on 27.02.2006 and IP No. 120 was proceeded exparte on 17.10.2007. Resultantly, no relief can be given to these IPs in this reference petition.
152. Claim of IP No.122 : IP No.122 is Sh. Anil Kumar, son of Sh. Ishwar Chand. This IP has stated that he had purchased 125 sq. yds. of property in khasra no.68/11/1 and 68/19/3 vide GPA dated 02.1.1982, deed of agreement, affidavit, registered will, registered receipt. This IP has also filed on record photocopies of property tax, election ICard and valuation report from the valuer, photographs of the demolished shop. In the demarcation report of the Collector and the valuation report of PWD which is Ex.RW1/40 and RW1/41, it is stated that 19.83 sq. meter and 21.04 sq. meter of land in khasra no.65/10/1 where Garg Saree Emporium was being run is adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings.
153. Nothing can be made out in favour of this IP because khasra no. in the demarcation report as well as in the valuation report is not matching with the khasra no. of the land in question in the documents of this IP. Moreover, this IP has not entered the witness box to prove his case. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP and his claim is rejected. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 91/140
154. Claim of IP No.123, 124 and 125 : IP No.123 is Sh. Suresh Chand, son of Sh. Ram Narain, IP No.124 is Dr. Ashok Kumar Goel and IP No.125 is Smt. Veena Aggarwal, wife of Kali Ram. These IPs have not filed any claim petition. IP No. 123 and 125 were proceeded exparte vide orders dated 27.02.2006 and IP No. 124 was proceeded exparte vide orders dated 17.10.2007. It is also recorded in order sheet dated 28.11.2007 that IP No. 123 is not pressing the case. Therefore, no relief can be given to these IPs in this reference petition.
155. Claim of IP No.126 : IP No.126 is Sh. Harswaroop, son of Sh. Shiv Narain. As per this IP, he was the owner of property No. RZ35A2, Palam Colony, New Delhi measuring 171 sq. yds. It is stated that the property was purchased from recorded owner Sh. Bhagwan Sharma. Reliance is placed on GPA, Agreement to sell, deed of will, affidavit, all dated 06.8.1983 which are Ex.IP 126/A to D. It is stated in the evidence by way of affidavit that a portion of property which was part of khasra no.68/19/1 has been acquired vide award in question. However, this IP has not quantified the portion of his property which has been acquired vide award in question. Unfortunately, nobody came to address arguments on behalf of this IP. A perusal of demarcation report placed on record by the Collector and valuation reports placed on record by the collector do not show the name of this IP in the list of affected persons. In Khasra no. 68/19/1, vide serial no.123 to 132 Sh. Raj Solanki, Sh. Ranbeer Singh, M/s Anajy Entp., Sh. Ashok Kumar Gaur, Sh. Chaudhary Karan Singh, Sh. Jaggu Mal, Smt. Dhan Kaur and Sh. Ishwar are the claimants. There is LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 92/140 nothing on record to show that land of present IP was affected in the acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, claim of this IP is rejected.
156. Claim of IP No.127, 128, 129, 130, 131 and 132 : IP No.127 is Sh. Jaipal Singh, son of Sh. Uday Ram, IP No.128 is Sh. Mahender Swaroop Vats, IP No.129 is Sh. Mahavir Prasad, IP No.130 is Sh. Shiv Shankar Vats, IP No.131 is Sh. Laxman Swaroop and IP No.132 are Sh. Mahender Kumar Goel, Kamla Goel, Pankaj Aggarwal, Sandeep Aggarwal. These IPs have not filed any claim petition. Resultantly no relief can be given to these IPs in the present reference petition.
157. Claim of IP No.133 : IP No.133 is Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal, son of late Sh. L.D.Hindi. His claim was allowed vide order dated 30.9.2009 when he was held entitled to receive compensation for 87 sq. meters of land.
158. Claim of IP No.134 : IP No.134 is Smt. Dhan Kaur, wife of Sh. Kanhaiya Lal. Case of this IP is that she had purchased 300 sq. yds. of land alongwith superstructure vide registered sale deed on 04.12.1970. Photocopy of sale deed was exhibited as PW1/1, election I Card was exhibited as PW1/2, electricity and water connections were exhibited as PW1/3 to PW1/5 and site plan was exhibited as PW1/6.
159. In the demarcation report, name of this IP appears at serial no.131. It is admitted by the Collector that area measuring 15.79 sq. meter is going to be adversely affected by the acquisition vide award in question. This fact is also admitted by the Collector in the form of Ex.PW1/35 which is the valuation report prepared by PWD where it is LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 93/140 stated that 15.79 sq. meters of the land of IP No.134 is going to be adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, claim of IP No.134 is partly allowed and she is held entitled to receive compensation for 15.79 sq. meters of land.
160. Claim of IP No. 135 : IP No.135 is Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, son of Sh. Vishambhar Dayal. Case of this IP is that he had purchased property no. RZ1/6 (plot no.12) out of khasra no.69/15 from the recorded owner Sh. Kartar, son of Sh. Hargobind Singh on 23.10.2001. Reliance is placed on general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter, registered will and registered receipt, ration card, receipts of Delhi Vidyut Board, authorisation of fair price shop, property tax receipt, election ICard, valuation report, affidavit which were exhibited as Ex.IP 135/A to P respectively. In the demarcation list prepared by the Collector name of this IP appears at item no.90 where it is stated that 11.02 sq. meters of land in possession of this IP is going to be adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in Ex.RW1/90 which is valuation report prepared by PWD it is mentioned that this IP is running a ration shop over the land in question and affected area would be 11.02 sq. meters. Resultantly, claim of this IP is partly allowed and he is held entitled to receive compensation for 11.02 sq. meters of land.
161. Claim of IP No. 136 :IP No.136 is Smt. Seema Devi, wife of late Sh. Krishan Kumar. Case of this IP is that she was the owner of property no. RZ1/6 (plot no.12) out of khasra no.69/15 measuring 75 sq. yds. She had purchased this plot from Sh. Kartar Singh, son of Sh. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 94/140 Hargobind. Reliance is placed on GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter in favour of IP No.136 executed by Sh. Bajrang Lal and Bodan Lal and Vinod Kumar as attorney of Kartar Singh were exhibited as IP 136/A to E and General Power of Attorney, registered will, registered receipt executed by Kartar Singh in favour of Bajrang Lal, Bodan Lal, Vinod Kumar and Krishan Kumar were exhibited as IP136/F to H. Ration Card was exhibited as IP136/I and valuation report was exhibited as Ex.IP136/J. Demarcation report of the Collector at serial no.92 mentions that land measuring 41.80 sq. meters in occupation of this IP in khasra no. 69/15 is going to be adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings. Furthermore in Ex.RW1/92 which is valuation report prepared by PWD on the instructions of the Collector, it is mentioned that area measuring 41.80 sq. meters in occupation of Smt. Seema Devi where she is running a shop in the name of Akshay Store is going to be adversely affected. Resultantly, claim of IP no.136 is partly allowed for 41.80 sq. meters of land.
162. Claim of IP No. 137 : IP No.137 is Murari Lal, son of Sh. Makkhan Lal. Case of this IP is that property no.11A out of khasra no. 69/15 admeasuring 150 sq. yds was in the exclusive possession of the claimant as he had purchased this land from the recorded owner Sh. Kartar Singh, son of Hargobind Singh. Reliance is placed on general power of attorney dated 24.12.1979 which is Ex.IP137/A, agreement Ex.IP137/B, affidavit Ex.IP137/C, will Ex.IP137/D and receipt Ex.IP137/E, letter of DDA addressed to this IP with regard to alternate shop was exhibited as IP137/F, electricity and water bills were exhibited as IP137/G to I, health LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 95/140 trade license given by MCD was exhibited as IP137/J and election ICard, valuation report is exhibited as IP137/K.
163. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector, at serial no.91, it is mentioned that in khasra no.69/15 land measuring 41.80 sq. meters of Murari Lal was going to be adversely affected in the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in Ex.RW1/91 which is evaluation report prepared by PWD on the instructions of Collector, it is stated that in Khasra no.69/15 Sh. Murari Lal is in possession who is running Vishnu Store in that property in area measuring 41.80 sq. meters.
164. Resultantly, claim of this IP is partly allowed and he is held entitled to receive compensation for 41.80 sq. meters of the land in question.
165. Claim of IP No. 138 : IP No.138 is Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of late Sh. Ram Singh. Case of this IP is that he had purchased property no.RZ1/9 Raj Nagar, Village Palam out of khasra no.69/7 on 04.10.1979 from the recorded owners. He has relied upon power of attorney, agreement, ration card, MCD license, electricity bills, sales tax registration certificate, valuation report which were exhibited as IP138/A to IP138/G. In the demarcation report prepared by the Collector name of this IP appears at serial no.87 where it is mentioned that in khasra no.69/7, this IP is in possession of land measuring 32.56 sq. meters which is going to be adversely affected by way of acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, in Ex.RW1/87, which is valuation report got prepared by the Collector through PWD it is mentioned that in khasra no.69/7, Sh Krishan Kumar is LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 96/140 carrying on business under the name and style of Chaudhary Marbels and an area of 32.56 sq. meters will be adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings.
166. Resultantly, claim of IP No.138 Sh. Krishan Kumar is partly allowed and he is declared entitled to received compensation for land measuring 32.56 sq. meters.
167. Claim of IP No.139 : IP No.139 is Sh. Dheer Singh, son of late Sh. Duli Chand. Claim of this IP is that he was the owner in possession of 125 sq. yds. of land out of khasra no.69/7 of Revenue Estate of village Palam which he had purchased vide general power of attorney, agreement, registered receipt from the earlier owner. These documents are exhibited as Ex.C2/1 collectively, order dated 28.5.2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court is Ex.C2/3, demarcation report is Ex.C2/4 and photocopy of valuation report was exhibited as C2/5.
168. In the demarcation report of the Collector, name of IP No.139 appears at serial no.86 where it is mentioned that in khasra no.69/7 Sh. Dheer Singh was in occupation of 25.08 sq. meters of land which was going to be adversely affected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in the valuation report Ex.RW1/86 prepared by PWD on the instructions of LAC it is stated that Sh. Dheer Singh is in occupation of shop in khasra no. 69/7 having plinth area 25.08 sq. meters.
169. Resultantly, claim petition of IP no.139 is partly allowed and he is entitled for compensation for land measuring 25.08 sq. meters.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 97/140
170. Claim of IP No.140 : IP No.140 is Sh. R.K.Sharma, son of Sh. D.P.Sharma. Claim of this IP is that he had purchased 392 sq. yds of land out of khasra no.69/7 from Sh. Gurdayal Nagdev, son of late Sh. Trilok Chand. Reliance is placed on GPA dated 08.4.2004, agreement to sell and affidavit which are exhibited as Ex.IP140/A to C and valuation report which is Ex.IP140/D. In the demarcation report prepared by the Collector name of this IP appears at serial no.82 where it is mentioned that in khasra no.69/7 Sh. R.K.Sharma is in occupation of 48.84 sq. meters of land. Similarly, in the valuation report got prepared by the Collector from PWD which is Ex.RW1/82 it is mentioned that Sh. R.K.Sharma is in occupation of khasra no.69/7 having plinth area 48.84 sq. meters.
171. Resultantly, claim of IP no.140 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 48.84 sq. meters of land.
172. Claim of IP No.141 : IP No.141 is Smt. Urmila Sharma, wife of Sh. D.P. Sharma. Case of IP No.141 is that she was the owner of 334 sq. yds. of land which she had purchased from Sh. Bhim Singh son of Sh. Hargovind on 19.03.1980. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, Special Power of attorney, affidavit registered deed of will, receipt of property tax dated 31.03.2007, electricity bill, valuation report which were exhibited as IP141/A to G respectively.
173. This IP has not pin pointedly claimed compensation for land which was part of khasra number 69/15 and was acquired for construction of Palam fly over. However, at serial number 99 of the valuation report prepared by the collector it is stated that in khasra number LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 98/140 69/15 Urmila Sharma, IP no. 141 was in occupation of 52.21 sq. meter of land which was going to be adversely effected in the acquisition proceedings. It is also mentioned that said land is being used for the purposes of running Sharma Nursing Home.
174. In this reference petition respondents have themselves filed valuation reports which were got prepared by the collector through PWD. As per Ex.RW1/99 also it is mentioned that in khasra number 69/15 Smt. Urmila Sharma was in possession running Sharma Nursing Home in an area measuring 52.21 sq. meter. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 141 Smt. Urmila Sharma is partly allowed and she is held entitled to receive compensation for 52.21 sq. meter of the land.
175. Claim of IP No. 142 : IP No. 142 is Sh. Jitender Kumar son of Sh. Om Prakash. Claim of this IP is that he was in exclusive possession of property number WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi out of khasra number 69/8/2 admeasuring about 94 sq. yards which he had purchased from Sh. Rameshwar Solanki. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and electricity bill which were exhibited as IP142A to E respectively. This IP has not pin pointedly stated how much sq. meter of land was adversely effected in the acquisition proceedings. Unfortunately, no counsel has appeared on behalf of this IP to assist in the disposal of this claim. A perusal of demarcation report as well as perusal of valuation reports filed on record by respondents property in khasra number 69/8/2 is shown in possession of one Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Manish Kumar Gupta at serial LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 99/140 number 140 and as per Ex.RW1/140 there is nothing on record to connect present IP with the acquired land. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 142 is dismissed.
176. Claim of IP No. 143: IP No. 143 is Sh. Rati Ram Aggarwal son of Sh. Prahlad Rai. Claim of this IP is that he had purchased property no. 10A, Village Palam out of khasra number 69/15 admeasuring 150 sq. yards from its owner. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, registered will, receipt executed by Sh. Prahlad Rai in favour of this IP which were exhibited as IP123/A to F respectively and General Power of attorney, agreement, affidavit, registered will, registered receipt executed by Sh. Kartar Singh son of Sh. Hargovind dated 24.12.1979 were exhibited as Ex.143/F to J respectively. Property tax receipt dated 12.07.2006 and 22.08.2006, ration card, valuation report were exhibited as IP143/I to M respectively. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of this IP is shown at serial number 88 where it is mentioned that this IP was in possession of 20.90 sq. meter of land which was going to be adversely effected in acquisition proceedings and it is also stated that said land was part of khasra number 69.15.
177. Moreover in Ex.RW1/88 which is valuation report got prepared from PWD by the collector it is again mentioned that in khasra number 69.50 Sh. Rati Ram Aggarwal was in possession of 20.90 sq. meter of land where shop in the name of Ankit Store was being run.
178. As claim of IP no. 143 is also supported by demarcation LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 100/140 report as well as valuation report filed by collector himself claim of this IP is also partly allowed for 20.90 sq. meter of land.
179. Claim of IP No. 144: IP No. 144 is Sh. Hari Ram son of Makhan Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number 11 in village Palam out of khasra number 69/50 admeasuring 150 sq. yards. This IP claim that he had purchased this land on 24.12.1979. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, registered receipt, registered will, receipt of property tax dated 23.09.2006, electricity bill, valuation report which were exhibited as Ex.IP144/A to I respectively.
180. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 144 appears at serial number 89 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/15 this IP was in possession of 20.90 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/89 it is mentioned that Sh. Hari Ram IP No. 144 was in possession of 20.90 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/15 where he was carrying on business in the name of Aren General Store. Therefore, claim of IP no. 144 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/89. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 144 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 20.90 sq. meter of land.
181. Claim of IP No. 145 : IP No. 145 is Smt. Pooja Sharma wife of Shri Dinesh Sharma. Claim of this IP is that she was owner LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 101/140 of property number RZ1/3, Raj Nagar, in village Palam out of khasra number 69/3 admeasuring 250 sq. yards. This IP claims that she had purchased this land on 15.10.1997. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt of property tax, electricity bill, valuation report which were exhibited as Ex.IP145/A to F respectively.
182. Counsel for the applicant has not appeared in the Court to address arguments on behalf of this IP. This IP has not pin pointedly stated how much of her property is acquired in the award in question.
183. Even in the demarcation report, there is no reference to this IP and there is no reference to Kh. No. 69/3 in the demarcation report. None of valuation reports numbering 179 which are Ex. RW1 to RW179 there is any mention about property of Smt. Pooja Sharma.
184. Therefore, claim of IP No. 145 is rejected.
185. Claim of IP No. 146 : IP No.146 is Dr. Umesh Saroha son of Shri Mool Chand. As per the claim petition, this IP is owner of built up shop measuring 22.5 sq. yds. in Kh. 65/13 where he was running a medical clinic in the name of Saroha Clinic and had handed over possession of 9.90 sq. mtrs. of this premises to the Collector. It is also stated that this petitioner is owner of property measuring 200 sq. yds. in Kh. No. 69/15 where nursing home in the name of Sunil Memorial Nursing Home was existing. It is stated that this IP had handed over 79.80 sq. mtr. of the land to the Collector at the time of acquisition. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 27.09.1995. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, ad hoc application form of LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 102/140 professional activity dated 05.01.2007, electricity bills, order dated 28.05.2004 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, demarcation report, valuation report which were exhibited as Ex.IP146/1 to 6 respectively.
186. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 146 appears at serial number 2 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/13 this IP was in possession of 9.90 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/2 it is mentioned that Saroha Clinic was in existence of 9.90 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/13.
187. Furthermore, in demarcation report, reference to IP No. 146 Shri Umesh Saroha is also made at serial no. 93. However, name mentioned is Shri Umesh Sharma instead of Umesh Saroha. Learned counsel for this IP Shri A.N. Aggarwal, Advocate submits that this is only a clerical error. It is stated in the demarcation report that in Kh. No. 69/15, 79.80 sq. mtr. of the land would be affective in the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, Ex. RW93 it mentioned that Sunil Memorial Hospital is existing in Kh. No. 69/15 where 79.80 sq. mtr. of land would be affected in the acquisition proceedings.
188. Therefore, claim of IP no. 146 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/2 and RZ1/93. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 146 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 9.90 sq. mtr. + 79.80 sq. mtr. = 89.70 sq. mtr. of land.
189. Claim of IP No. 147 : IP No.147 is Smt. Satyawati LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 103/140 Gupta wife of Sh. Kishan Chand Gupta. This IP was proceeded exparte on 17.10.2007. This IP has not preferred any claim petition therefore, no relief can be given to her.
190. Claim of IP No. 148 : IP No.148 are Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Manish Kumar Gupta both sons of Shri Kishan Chand Gupta. Claims of these IPs are that they were owner of property number WZ507, Raj Nagar, in village Palam out of rectangle number 69 killa no. 8/2 ad measuring 171/2 x 538 sq. yds. These IPs claim that they had purchased this land on 24.04.1989. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, registered receipt, registered will, receipt of property tax dated 30.04.1997, election I. Card and PAN Card, electricity bill, valuation report which were exhibited as Ex.IP148/A to I respectively.
191. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector names of IP No. 148 appear at serial number 140 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/8/2 these IPs were in possession of 63.68 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/140 it is mentioned that Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Manish Gupta IP No. 148 were in possession of 63.68 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/8/2 where they were carrying on business in the name of M/s. CD Diagnostic. Therefore, claim of IP No. 148 was also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/140. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 148 is partly allowed and they are held entitled LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 104/140 for compensation for 63.68 sq. meter of land.
192. Claim of IP No. 149 : IP No.149 is Shri Mahabir Singh son of Sh. Surat Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of 1 bigha out of khasra number 69/7 in village Palam where he had 1/3rd share by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.06.1978. It was further stated that he had transferred 250 sq. yards of the land and was left with only 50 sq. yards of land where he was running a bakery. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed dated 02.06.1978 as Ex.IP1/1, site plan as Ex.IP1/2, Valuation report as Ex.IP/3, Property tax receipt as Ex.IP1/4 and 5.
193. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 149 appears at serial number 76 where it is stated that this IP was in possession of 11.20 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/77 it is mentioned that Sh. Mahabir Singh IP No. 149 was in possession of 11.20 sq. meter of land. Therefore, claim of IP no. 149 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/77. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 149 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 11.20 sq. meter of land.
194. Claim of IP No. 150: IP No. 150 is Shri Randhir Singh son of Suart Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of 50 sq. yards of property in khasra number 69/7 in village Palam. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 01.09.1997 vide GPA, registered will, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt which are Ex.IPW1/1 colly. Site plan is LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 105/140 Ex.IPW1/2, valuation report is Ex.IPW1/3, electricity bill is Ex.IPW1/4, MTNL Bill, Delhi Jal board Bill were exhibited as Ex.IPW1/5 to 7.
195. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 150 appears at serial number 80 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/7 this IP was in possession of 10.24 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/80 it is mentioned that Sh. Randhir Singh IP No. 150 was in possession of 10.24 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/7 where he was carrying on business in the name of Solanki Telecom. Therefore, claim of IP no. 150 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/80. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 150 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 10.24 sq. meter of land.
196. Claim of IP No.151 : IP No. 51 is Shri Sukhbir Singh son of Sh. Surat Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of 50 sq. yards of land in khasra no. 69/7 in village Palam. This IP claims that he had purchased this land in September 1997 from Sh. Mahabir Singh. Reliance is placed on registered Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, registered will which are exhibited as Ex.IPW1/1 collectively. Site plan, valuation report, property tax receipts of MCD were exhibited as EX.IPW1/5.
197. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 151 appears at serial number 81 where it is stated that in LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 106/140 khasra number 69/7 this IP was in possession of 10.88 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/81 it is mentioned that Sh. Sukhbir Singh IP No. 151 was in possession of 10.88 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/7 where he was carrying on business in the name of Solanki Bakery. Therefore, claim of IP No. 151 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/81. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 151 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 10.88 sq. meter of land.
198. Claim of IP No. 152: IP No. 152 are Shri Joginder Singh, Sh Surinder, Sh. Praveen, Sh. Sunil sons of Nafe Singh. Claim of these IPs is that they were owner of property in khasra number 69/7/1 in village Palam, Delhi. It is stated that their grand father Sh. Kartar Singh was the recorded owner and each of the IP is entitled to receive 1/4 th of compensation. Reliance is placed on khatoni.
199. In the evidence by way of affidavit it is stated that in the land in question was in khasra no. 69/7/9 and in the same affidavit it is again said land was in khasra number 67/7/1. No counsel has appeared to address arguments on behalf of this IP. Neither in khasra no. 69/07/09 nor 67/1/1 in the demarcation report and valuation report names of these IPs are appearing. There is nothing on record to confirm that land of these IPs was ever acquired in the acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, claim of these IPs is rejected.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 107/140
200. Claim of IP No.153 : IP No.153 is Shri Bharam Prakash son of Sh. Hira Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number 14 in village Palam out of khasra number 69/15 ad measuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 01.04.98. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, will executed by Hira Lal in favour of this IP which were exhibited as EX.IP153/A to D and GPA, affidavit, agreement for sale, registered receipt executed by Sh. Manphool in favour of Sh. Hira Lal were exhibited as Ex.IP153/E to F and MTNL bill was exhibited as Ex.IP153/G.
201. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 153 appears at serial number 97 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/15 this IP was in possession of 35.28 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/97 it is mentioned that Sh. Bharam Prakash son of Hira Lal IP No. 153 was in possession of 35.28 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/15. Therefore, claim of IP No. 153 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/97. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 153 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 35.28 sq. meter of land.
202. Claim of IP No. 154, 155 and 156 : IP No. 154 is Shri Suresh Kumar Garg son of Sh. D.R. Garg, IP No. 155 is Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Murari Lal Gupta and IP156 is Smt. Dropadi Devi wife of Sh. Ram Dhan Gupta with Sh. Ram Charan Gupta son of Sh. Om Prakash LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 108/140 Gupta. IP No. 155 was proceeded exparte on 27.02.2006 and IP No. 154 and 156 were proceeded exparte on 17.10.2007. These IPs have preferred no claim petition. Resultantly, no relief can be given to them.
203. Claim of IP No. 157 : IP No. 157 is Shri Satbir son of Sh. Keshow Ram. While deciding claim of IP No. 105, reference to this IP had also come as IP No. 105 had sold half of his property to IP No. 157. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of 148 sq. meters of land in khasra no. 69/7 in village Palam. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 28.06.2000. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt given by Delhi Vidyut Board which were exhibited as Ex.IPW157/2 collectively.
204. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 157 appears at serial number 77 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/7 this IP was in possession of 8.32 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/76 it is mentioned that Sh. Satbir singh IP No. 157 was in possession of 8.32 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/7. Therefore, claim of IP No. 157 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/76. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 157 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 8.32 sq. meter of land.
205. Claim of IP No.158 : IP No. 158 is Shri Om Prakash son of Sh. Kartar Singh. This IP has not preferred any claim petition. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. Therefore no relief LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 109/140 can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
206. Claim of IP No. 159 : IP No.159 are Smt. Sundari Devi wife of Sh. Rajender Singh, Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Sh. Ramesh Chander and Smt. Prabhati Devi wife of Sh. Gurdayal Singh.
207. There are several claimants in the head of IP No. 159. One claim is filed by Smt. Sundari Devi wife of Sh. Rajender Singh. She has stated in her claim petition that she had purchased 128 sq. yards of land out of khasra no. 69/15 from Duli Chand Juneja on 24.05.1984. She claims to be exclusive owner of this property which was given municipal number 15B. She has relied upon General Power of attorney executed by Sh. Duli Chand Juneja, deed of agreement executed by Smt. Nirmal Juneja, affidavit and registered receipt executed by Smt. Nirmal Juneja, all dated 25.05.84.
208. A perusal of these documents revealed that purchaser was not only Sundari Devi but these documents are in favour of Sundari Devi wife of Sh. Rajender Singh and Sumitra Devi wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar. That shows that Smt. Sundari Devi was not the exclusive owner and Smt. Sumitra Devi was also owner of the half of the property.
209. Second claim is filed by Sh. Gurdayal Singh husband of Smt. Parbhati Devi. It is stated that Smt. Parbhati Devi died on 10.03.1999 leaving behind Sh. Gurdayal Singh ( husband) and Sh. Ramesh Chand, Rajender Kumar, Gabbar Singh and Dalip Chand (sons). Unfortunately nobody came in the witness box for LRs evidence on the death of Smt. Parbhati Devi and as a result claim of Smt. Parbhati Devi remained unproved. No counsel had appeared at any stage to address arguments for LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 110/140 Smt. Parbhati Devi. Therefore claim of Gurdayal Singh is rejected.
210. Third claim is filed on behalf of Sh. Ram Niwas son of Sh. Umrao Singh. He is not one of the IPs in this reference petition. Therefore, no relief can be given to Sh. Ram Niwas.
211. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 159 appears at serial number 98 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/15 these IPs were in possession of 7.75 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/98 it is mentioned that Smt. Sundari Devi wife of Sh. Rajender Singh, Sumitra Devi wife of Sh. Ramesh Chand and Prabhati Devi wife of Sh. Gurdayal Singh IP No. 159 were in possession of 7.75 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/15 where they were carrying on business in the name of Gujar Marble.
212. As noted above only Smt. Sundari Devi and Sumitra Devi had appeared in the witness box. No one has appeared on behalf of Smt. Parbhati Devi.
213. Therefore, claim of Smt. Sundari Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi is partly allowed holding that they are entitled for compensation for 1/3 share each out of 7.75 sq. meter of land.
rd
214. Claim of IP No.160 : IP No. 160 is Shri Hari Ram son of Sh. Makhan Lal. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. This IP has not filed any claim and therefore no relief can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 111/140
215. Claim of IP No. 161 : IP No.161 is Shri Mohan lal son of Sh. Hira Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number 14 in village Palam out of khasra number 69/15 admeasuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 02.04.98. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement for sell, affidavit which were exhibited as Ex.IP161/A to C respectively.
216. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 161 appears at serial number 96 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/15 this IP was in possession of 17.28 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/96 it is mentioned that Sh. Mohan Lal son of Hira Lal IP No. 161 was in possession of 17.28 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/15 where he was carrying on business in the name of Mohan Cycle Works. Therefore, claim of IP no. 161 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/96. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 161 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 17.28 sq. meter of land.
217. Claim of IP No.162 : IP No.162 is Shri Hari Ram son of Sh. Prahlad Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ612, Raj Nagar, in village Palam admeasuring 150 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 06.10.2000. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney, registered will, receipt of property tax dated 28.04.2007, copy of election I card, copy of license for LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 112/140 hair cutting saloon, copy of electricity bill and site plan which were exhibited as Ex.IP162/A to G respectively.
218. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 162 appears at serial number 44 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/10/1 this IP was in possession of 13.72 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/44 it is mentioned that Sh. Hari Ram IP No. 162 was in possession of 13.72 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/10/1. Therefore, claim of IP no. 162 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/44. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 162 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 13.72 sq. meter of land.
219. Claim of IP No.163 : IP No. 163 is Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ454, in village Palam. This IP claims that his father Sohan Lal along with his brother Madho Ram and Jeet Ram had purchased two plots of land bearing no. A1 of 200 sq. yards and A2 of 200 sq. yards total area measuring 400 sq. Yards situated in the abadi of Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi vide registered sale deed dated 18.09.1957. This property was partitioned on 19.08.1988 between Madho Ram, LRs of Sohan Lal and Jeet Ram. LRs of Sohan Lal executed a release deed dated 28.02.1989 in favor of Smt Bali w/o Sh. Sohan Lal whereby they relinquished their share acquired in partition of property. After the death of Smt Bali all the legal LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 113/140 heirs vide registered relinquishment deed relinquished their share in favor of the claimant. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed, registered partition deed, death certificate of Smt Bali Devi, registered relinquished deed in favor of claimant, receipt of property tax, electricity bill, order dated 28.05.2004, demarcation report and valuation report which were exhibited as Ex.IP163/1 to 9 respectively. Claimant has claimed compensation for 9.76 sq. meter of land in question
220. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 163 appears at serial number 15 and 16 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/12 this IP was in possession of 5.67 sq. meter + 4.09 sq. meter of land = 9.76 sq. meter which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/15 and 16 it is mentioned that Sh. Raj Kumar IP No. 163 was in possession of 4.09 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/12 where he was carrying on business in the name of Stove, cycle works. Similarly, in Ex RW1/15 also it is mentioned that IP no. 163 Sh. Raj Kumar is in possession of 5.67 Sq. meter of land in khasra no. 65/12 where he is carry on his business of Bartan Store. Therefore, claim of IP no. 163 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/15 and 16. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 163 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 9.76 sq. meter of land.
221. Claim of IP No. 164 and 165: IP No. 164 is Sh Rakesh Oberoi s/o Sh Krishan Lal and IP no. 165 is Shri Krishan Pal Oberoi son of LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 114/140 Shri Sunder Mal. These IPs were proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. These IPs have not preferred any claim in this reference petition. Therefore, no relief can be given to these IPs.
222. Claim of IP No. 166: IP No.166 is Shri Inder Singh Sonaki son of Shri Sardar Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number RZ455A, Palam Colony in village Palam out of khasra number 64/15/2 admeasuring 222 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 06.03.1981. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed, deed of declaration, electricity bill, certified copy of order dated 24.05.2004, demarcation report, photocopy of valuation report, which were exhibited as Ex.C1/1 to 6 respectively.
223. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 163 appears at serial number 12 and 13 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/12 this IP was in possession of 16.01 sq. meter of land + 12.96 sq. meter of land = 28.97 sq. meter which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/12 and 13 it is mentioned that Sh. Inder Singh IP No. 166 was in possession of 16.01 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/12 where State Bank of India was working and it is also mentioned that he was in possession of 12.96 sq. meter of land in khasra no. 65/12 where Deep Medical Store was operating. Therefore, claim of IP no. 166 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/12 and 13. Resultantly, claim of IP LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 115/140 No. 166 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 28.97 sq. meter of land.
224. Claim of IP No. 167: IP No. 167 is Smt. Kamla Makkad w/o Sh Chela Ram. Claim of this IP is that she was owner of property number WZ612A, Raj Nagar in Palam Colony out of kila number 5 admeasuring 7.6 X 15 sq. yards. This IP claims that she had purchased this land vide General Power of Attorney which was Ex. as IP167/A, property tax receipt and electricity bill were Ex. as IP167/B to C respectively.
225. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 167 appears at serial number 45 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/10/1 this IP was in possession of 30.25 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/44 it is mentioned that Smt Kamla Kumari IP No. 167 was in possession of 30.25 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/10/1 where she was carrying on business of liquor shop. Therefore, claim of IP no. 167 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/45. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 167 is partly allowed and she is held entitled for compensation for 30.25 sq. meter of land.
226. Claim of IP No.168 : IP No.168 is Shri Laloo Ram son of Sh. Mangu Ram. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number 3A in Palam Colony, Main Railway Road, in the Revenue Estate of village Palam out of khasra number 64/15/2 admeasuring 111 sq. yards. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 116/140 This IP claims that property in question was purchased by him along with Sh. Lilu Ram, Sh. Chand, Jai Narain and Budh Ram on 29.12.1979 from Sh. Kewal Braham Prakash who had executed agreement to sell, receipt, will and affidavit which were exhibited as IP178/1 collectively. It is further stated that Sh. Lilu Ram and Budh Ram sold their share to this claimant and Sh. Sheel Chand and Jai Narain on 12.10.1993 vide agreement to sell, GPA, receipt, affidavit and will all dated 12.10.1993 which were exhibited IP178/2 collectively.
227. It is further stated that Sh. Jai Narain sold his share to Sh. Sheel Chand on 31.03.1994 and thereafter this claimant and Sh. Sheel Chand became joint owners in equal shares of the property mentioned above. This claimant was in possession of half portion of property No. WZ455B, Raj Nagar, Palam colony, New Delhi. This IP claims that he was running the business in the name of M/s New Bansal Cloth House. MCD licence was exhibited as IP178/4. Electricity bill, property tax receipt, adhoc registeration certificate given by MCD, order dated 28.05.2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court and valuation report was exhibited as IP178/5 to 10.
228. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 168 appears at serial number 10 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/13/1 this IP was in possession of 7.93 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/10 it is mentioned that Sh. Lalu Ram IP No. 168 was in LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 117/140 possession of 7.93 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/13/1 where he was carrying on business in the name of Bansal Cloth House. Therefore, claim of IP no. 168 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/10. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 168 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 7.93 sq. meter of land.
229. Claim of IP No. 169: IP No.169 is Shri Nand Lal son of Sh. Asha Ram. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ507, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi in village Palam ad measuring 7.6 x 15 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 29.12.2001. Reliance is placed on registered release deed which was exhibited as IP 169/A and MCD receipts and electricity bill were exhibited as 169/B and C respectively.
230. A perusal of Ex.169/A shows that Sh. Asha Ram father of this IP was the owner of 100 sq. yards of land. After his death 5 daughters of the deceased had relinquished their share in favour of Sh. Nand Lal and Sh. Bhagwan Dass, the two sons of late Sh. Asha Ram. Vide release deed dated 31.12.2001 Sh. Bhagwan Dass released his share in favour of Sh. Nand Lal.
231. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 169 appears at serial number 33 and 34 where it is stated that this IP was in possession of 7.93 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/33 and 34 it is mentioned that IP No. 169 Nand Lal was in possession of 7.93 LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 118/140 sq. meter of land in shop No. 1 and in shop no. 2 he was doing the business of Gulshan Embroidery. The area of second shop was also mentioned as 7.93 sq. meter. Therefore, claim of IP no. 169 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/33 and 34. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 169 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 15.86 sq. meter of land.
232. Claim of IP No. 170: IP No.170 is Shri Ram Swaroop Aggarwal son of Sh. Sant Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number RZ613A, Raj Nagar, Palam colony, New Delhi in village Palam out of khasra number 5 admeasuring 26.02/3 sq. yards. This IP claim that he had purchased this land on 24.05.1993. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney, property tax receipt, electricity bill which were exhibited as IP170A to C.
233. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 170 appears at serial number 48 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/24 this IP was in possession of 18 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/48 it is mentioned that Sh. Ram Swaroop Aggarwal IP No. 170 was in possession of 18 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/24 where he was carrying on business in the name of Pasanol Exclusive Store. Therefore, claim of IP No. 170 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/48. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 170 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 18 sq. meter of LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 119/140 land.
234. Claim of IP No. 171 : IP No.171 is Smt. Indira Devi wife of Sh. Ghan Shyam. Claim of this IP is that she was owner of property number WZ612, Raj Nagar, Palam colony, New Delhi in village Palam out of khasra number 5 admeasuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that she had purchased this land on 13.06.1983. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt of property tax dated 26.06.2007, copy of election I card and electricity bill which were exhibited as Ex.IP171/A to G respectively.
235. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 171 appears at serial number 43 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/10/1 this IP was in possession of 13.72 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/43 it is mentioned that Smt. Indira Devi IP No. 171 was in possession of 13.72 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/10/1 where she was carrying on business in the name of Amit Hair Saloon. Therefore, claim of IP no. 171 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/43. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 171 is partly allowed and she is held entitled for compensation for 13.72 sq. meter of land.
236. Claim of IP No.172 : IP No.172 are Shri Giri Raj son of Hans Raj and Sh. Yog Raj son of Sh. Hans Raj. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ613A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony in LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 120/140 village Palam admeasuring 29 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 13.06.2000. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, Special Power of attorney, affidavit, registered will, electricity bill, Site plan which were exhibited as Ex.IP172/A to F respectively.
237. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 172 appears at serial number 49 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/24 this IP was in possession of 20.50 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/49 it is mentioned that IP No. 172 was in possession of 20.50 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/24. Therefore, claim of IP No. 172 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/49. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 172 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 20.50 sq. meter of land. However, this compensation shall be released jointly in the name of both the IPs i.e Sh. Giri Raj and Sh. Yog Raj.
238. Claim of IP No.173 : IP No. 173 is Shri Jage Ram and Smt. Choti Devi wife of Sh. Mala Ram. Claim of LRs of this IP is that she was owner of property number WZ454, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony in village Palam out of khasra number 65.12 admeasuring 7 x 5 sq. yards. This IP claims that she had purchased this land on 06.08.1988. Reliance is placed on agreement, registered General Power of Attorney, registered will, registered receipt, affidavit, MCD licence, electricity bill, property tax receipts, order dated 28.05.2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court and LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 121/140 demarcation reports which were exhibited as Ex.A5/2 to 7 respectively.
239. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 173 appears at serial number 17 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/12 this IP was in possession of 4.62 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/17 it is mentioned that Sh. Choti Devi wife of Sh. Mala Ram Chouhan, IP No. 173 was in possession of 4.62 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/12 where she was carrying on business in the name of Pal Meat Shot. Therefore, claim of IP no. 173 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/17. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 173 is partly allowed and she is held entitled for compensation for 4.62 sq. meter of land.
240. Claim of IP No.174 : IP No. 174 is Shri Jeet Raj, Mohan Raj and Sh. Prakash Chand all sons of Sh. Prabhu Dayal. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 17.10.2007. These IPs have not preferred any claim and therefore no relief can be given to these IPs in this reference petition.
241. Claim of IP No.175 : IP No.175 is Shri Madho Ram son of Sh. Mangla Ram. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 17.10.2007. This IP has not preferred any claim and therefore no relief can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
242. Claim of IP No.176 : IP No.176 is Shri Naveen Kumar son of Sh. Charanji Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 122/140 number WZ614, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony out of khasra number 64/5 ad measuring 7.6 x 15 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 03.06.1995 from Giri Raj and Yog Raj both sons of Sh. Hans Raj.
243. However, in the evidence by way of affidavit this IP has stated that he had purchased 394 sq. yards of land from Sh. Chunni Lal son of Sh. Gura Ditta Mal. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, property tax receipt, ration card and adhoc registration certificate of retail shops / other activities which were exhibited as IP176/A to G.
244. No counsel has come to address arguments on this claim petition.
245. In the demarcation report as well as in different valuation reports filed on record by the collector name of this IP is not appearing. In absence of any assistance on behalf of this IP there is nothing on record to show that any land of this IP was taken away in the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP and his claim is rejected.
246. It is also noted that there is variation in the pleadings and evidence of this IP and he has not pin pointedly disclosed how much of his land has been acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
247. Claim of IP No.177, 178 and 179 : IP No.177 is Shri Dinesh, IP No. 178 is Sh. Anand Swaroop and IP No. 179 is Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Sh. Laxmi Chand. IP No. 177 and 178 were proceeded ex parte vide orders dated 27.02.2006. These IPs have not filed any clam LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 123/140 petition. Therefore, no relief can be given to these IPs.
248. Claim of IP No.180 : IP No.180 is Shri Prem Chand son of Sh. Devi Sharan. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number G3, now known as RZ187B, Main Road, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony New Delhi, admeasuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that his father had purchased this land on 27.10.1970. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed, the death certificate of Sh. Devi Sahai, registered will executed by Sh. Devi Sahai which were exhibited as CW1/2 collectively. Bill raised by Delhi Jal Board in the name of this IP, electricity bill raised by BSES in the name of this IP and property tax receipts in the name of father of this IP were exhibited as CW1/3 collectively. Election I card, PAN card were exhibited as CW1/4. Valuation report was exhibited as Ex.CW1/5, site plan was exhibited as CW1/6, photograph of shop was exhibited as CW1/7.
249. No counsel has appeared to address arguments on behalf of this IP. Name of this IP could not be found in the demarcation report filed by the collector or in the valuation reports which are Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/179. Therefore no relief can be given to this IP as he has not shown that any portion of his property was acquired. Therefore, the claim of this IP is rejected.
250. Claim of IP No. 181 : IP No.181 is Shri Chela Ram son of Sh. Guru Ditta Mal. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. This IP has not filed any claim petition. Therefore no relief can be given to this IP.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 124/140
251. Claim of IP No. 182: IP No. 182 is Shri Vaid Gopal Ghoshtwal son of Sh. Mangal Ram. This IP has two Claims. His first claim was in the capacity of IP No. 78 which has been allowed for 6.30 sq. meter of land.
252. In this claim petition this IP has stated that he was owner of property number WZ186, Main Road, Sadh Nagar, Palam colony, New Delhi admeasuring 167 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 07.03.1990 vide registered deed of release which is Ex.PW1/2. Property tax assessment dated 23.08.2002 was exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Valuation report was exhibited as Ex.PW1/4.
253. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 182 appears at serial number 152 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/25 this IP was in possession of 21.11 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/152 it is mentioned that Sh. Vaid Gopal IP No. 182 was in possession of 21.11 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/25 where there was a book depot namely Jaipur book Depot. Therefore, claim of IP no. 182 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/152. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 152 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 21.11 sq. meter of land.
254. Claim of IP No.183 : IP No.183 is Shri Shadi Ram son of Sh. Hardev Singh. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number RZ187, 3rd Main Road, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi ad LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 125/140 measuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 15.12.1973. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of registered sale deed in favour of Sharbati Devi dated 27.10.1970 was also filed on record.
255. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 183 does not appear. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW179, name of this IP does not figure. Therefore, this IP has not shown that any portion of his land was adversely effected by acquisition proceedings. Therefore, claim of this IP is dismissed.
256. Claim of IP No. 184: IP No.184 is Shri Om Prakash son Sh. Chottey Lal and Sh. Jagdish Prasad son of Sh. Chottey Lal. However, claim is filed by one Sh. Prahlad Singh claiming to be son of Sh. Chottey Lal. Claim of this IP Sh. Prahlad Saini is that he is attorney of Smt. Manbhawati Devi widow of Sh. Chottey Lal who was owner of the land measuring 220 sq. yards in property number WZ188, at Main Road Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. This IP claims that Sh. Chottey Lal had executed a will during his life time in favour of Smt. Manbhawati Devi. Reliance is placed on sale deed Ex.PW1/2 which is in favour of Sh. Chottey Lal son of Sh. Lekh Ram Saini. Death certificate of Sh. Chottey Lal was exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Will executed by Sh. Chottey Lal in favour of his wife Smt. Manbhawati was exhibited as Ex.P1/4. Power of Attorney given by Smt. Manbhawti Devi in favour of Sh. Prahald Saini was exhibited as Ex.PW1/5, Property tax receipt was exhibited as Ex.PW1/6, LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 126/140 election I card was exhibited as EX.PW1/7 and valuation report was exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 and site plan was exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 and letter of Citi Financial confirming that they have original sale deed and will in their possession was exhibited as Ex.PW1/10.
257. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 184 does not appear. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.PW179 name of this IP does not appear. Therefore, claim of this IP is dismissed as he has not succeeded in showing that any portion of his property was acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
258. Claim of IP No. 185: IP No.185 is Shri Ramesh Chand son of Sh. Nanak Chand. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ185, in Main Road Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony admeasuring 100 sq. yards of land. This IP claims that his maternal grand father had purchased this land on 27.11.1957. Reliance is placed on said sale deed which is Ex.CW1/2. Copy of relinquishment deed executed by daughter of Sh. Nanak Chand namely Smt. Devki in favour of Sh. Ramesh Chand was also filed on record. Valuation report and site plan were exhibited as CW1/3 and 4 respectively.
259. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 185 appears at serial number 137 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/2/1 this IP was in possession of 6.85 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 127/140 which is Ex.RW1/137 it is mentioned that Sh. Ramesh Chand IP No. 185 was in possession of 6.85 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/2/1. Therefore, claim of IP no. 185 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/137. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 185 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 6.85 sq. meter of land.
260. Claim of IP No. 186: IP No.186 is Smt. Ram Kali Devi wife of Sh. Jeet Ram. This IP has not filed any claim petition. Therefore no relief can be given in this reference petition to IP No. 186.
261. Claim of IP No. 187: IP No. 187 is Shri Bhoop Singh son of Sh. Devi Sahai. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number RZ187B, Main Road Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi ad measuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that his father had purchased the property vide registered sale deed on 27.10.1970 from Smt. Sarupi. Reliance is placed on sale deed, electricity bill, property tax receipt, GPA executed by Sh. Devi Sahai in favour of Sh. Bhoop Singh, death certificate of Sh. Devi Sahai, license given by MCD for commercial unit in the name of New Janta Dry Cleaner and valuation report which were exhibited as PW1/2 to 7.
262. No counsel has appeared to address arguments on behalf of this IP. Perusal of demarcation report also shows that name of this IP is not shown in the list of effected parties. Similarly in the valuation reports got prepared by the collector which are Ex.RW1/1 to 179 name of this IP is not mentioned.
LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 128/140
263. In the claim petition this IP has neither specifically mentioned khasra number of the land nor exact measurement of the property which is adversely effected by acquisition proceedings. Therefore claim of this IP is dismissed.
264. Claim of IP No. 188: IP No.188 is Shri Mukesh Sharma. He has not filed any claim. Therefore no relief can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
265. Claim of IP No. 189: IP No.189 is Block Development Officer, SouthWest, Najafgarh. In preceding paragraphs of this judgment claim of Gaon Sabha and BDO is already rejected. Therefore, no claim can be given to this IP.
266. Claim of IP No.190 : IP No.190 is Shri Giyasuddin son of Sh. Shirajuddin. He was also proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. This IP has not filed any claim petition. Therefore no relief can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
267. Claim of IP No. 191: IP No.191 is Shri Laik Chand son of Sh. Sohan Lal. IP No. 191 was proceeded exparte vide orders 27.02.2006. This IP has filed no claim petition. Therefore no relief can be given to this IP in this reference petition.
268. Claim of IP No. 192: IP No. 192 is Sh. Ishwar Chand son of Sh. Gauri Shankar. This IP has stated that he is entitled for compensation for land measuring 150 sq. yards bearing No. 611, AB Raj Nagar, Palam Colony. He has stated that he was in occupation of said land in khasra no. 65/10/1. He has relied upon registered sale deed dated LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 129/140 13.10.1965 executed by Smt. Lajwanti in favour of Smt. Damyanti wife of this IP. He has also relied upon power of attorney given by Sh. Amarnath in his favour on 14.08.1972, affidavit of Sh. Amarnath, receipt, deed of agreement and will executed by Sh. Amarnath. He also placed on record death certificate of Smt. Damyanti Devi and Will executed by Sh. Ishwar Chand. He has also filed on record property tax receipt, election I card, valuation report and photographs of the effected shop. In the demarcation report reference to Sh. Ishwar Chand is made at Serial No. 40 and 41 where it is stated that land measuring 19.83 sq. meter and 21.04 sq. meter in khasra no. 65/10/1 is going to be adversely effected in the acquisition proceedings and this land was in occupation of Sh. Ishwar Chand.
269. In the valuation reports which are Ex.RW1/40 and 41 name of this IP is mentioned and it is also mentioned that in first parcel of land this IP was running Garg Sari Emporium.
270. However, it appears this IP did not enter the witness box to prove his case. In absence of any evidence, no relief can be given to this IP. Therefore, claim of this IP is dismissed.
271. Claim of IP No. 193 : IP No.193 is Shri Om Prakash son of Sh. Ram Kishan. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ504, Raj Najagr, Palam Colony, New Delhi. This IP is said to have appointed Sh. Virender Singh as his Special Power of Attorney because of his poor health. It is stated that Sh. Ram Swaroop grand father of Sh. Virender Singh had purchased 200 sq. yards of land in khasra number 65/12 vide registered sale deed dated 07.05.1964. It is stated that LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 130/140 Sh. Ram Swaroop executed a Will on 19.04.1973 bequeathing the property in favour of Sh. Om Prakash and Sh. Balbir. Sh. Ram Swaroop died on 27.12.1979. After the death of Sh. Ram Swaroop Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Om Prakash became the joint owners of the property. Sh. Balbir Singh died on 07.12.1985 and is survived by Sh. Attar Singh. During the life time of Sh. Balbir Singh the property was orally partitioned and back portion measuring 125 sq. ft. was given to Sh. Balbir Singh and front portion measuring 75 sq. yards fell to the share of Sh. Om Prakash. This arrangement was affirmed by Sh. Attar Singh vide his affidavit dated 19.11.2007. As such it is stated that Sh. Om Prakash is the owner of 75 sq. yards of the land. SPA was exhibited as CA3/A, sale deed was exhibited as CA3/1, Will executed by Sh. Ram Swaroop in favour of Balbir Singh and Om Prakash was given Ex.CA3/2, death certificate of Sh. Ram Swaroop was given Ex.CA3/3, death certificate of Sh. Balbir Singh was given Ex.C3/4, affidavit of Sh. Attar Singh was given Ex.C1/5, copy of property tax receipt was exhibited as CA3/6, copy of order dated 28.05.2004 was exhibited as CA3/7 and demarcation report was exhibited as CA3/8. Valuation report was exhibited as CA3/9.
272. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 193 appears at serial number 19, 20, 21 where it is stated that in khasra number 65/12 this IP was in possession of 4.05 sq. meter + 4.65 sq. meter + 5.04 sq. meter of land totaling 13.74 sq. meter which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 131/140 Ex.RW1/19, 20 and 21 it is mentioned that Sh. Om Prakash was in possession of total area measuring 13.74 sq. meter of land in khasra number 65/12. Therefore, claim of IP no. 193 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/19 to 21. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 193 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 13.74 sq. meter of land.
273. Claim of IP No.194 & 195: IP No.194 is Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav and IP No. 195 Smt. Shila wife of Sh. Jai Prakash Garg. Although name of Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav appears in the demarcation report at serial no. 3 and 4 where it is shown that 31.50 sq. meter land of this IP is adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings but this IP has not filed any claim petition. These IPs were also proceeded exparte vide orders dated 27.02.2006. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP. Same is the case with Smt. Shila IP No. 195. She has also not preferred any claim petition. Therefore, no relief can be given to IP No. 195 also.
274. Claim of IP No. 196: IP No. 196 are Shri Hardwari Lal son of Sh. Jeet Ram and Sh. Prem Singh and son of Sh. Jeet Ram. Claim of these IPs is that their father late Sh. Jeet Ram had purchased land measuring 60 X 15 ft. from one Sh. Khazan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1957.
275. It is stated that Sh. Jeet Ram died on 17.04.1970 and widow of Sh. Jeet Ram namely Smt. Ram Kali died on 12.01.1995.
276. The daughters of Lt. Sh Jeet Ram relinquished their share in favor of Sh. Hardwari Lal and Prem Singh vide registered LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 132/140 relinquished deed dated 25.05.2005.
277. IP No. 196 has relied upon electricity bill and license from MCD to run commercial activity. This IP claims that he was carrying on commercial activity as M/s Laxmi Welding works on the land in question.
278. As per this IP, 13.53 sq. mtr. of the land has been acquired in the acquisition proceedings. Reliance is also placed on valuation report. The documents mentioned above were Ex. as IPW196/1 to 8 respectively.
279. No Counsel has come to address arguments on behalf of this IP. In the evidence by way of affidavit, khasra no. of the property in question is not disclosed.
280. Even sale deed and relinquishment deed are not showing any khasra number.
281. Unfortunately name of this IP is not shown in the demarcation report filed on record by the collector. Name of this IP is not available from valuation reports which are Ex. RPW1 to 179. Even there is no mention of M/s Laxmi Welding Works which is the trade name of the shop as per IP. IP claims that total land adversely affected by acquisition proceeding is 30.53 sq. mt. This figure is arrived at by taking into consideration two areas which were allegedly acquired and are 14.90 sq. mt. and 15.63 sq. mt. A perusal of demarcation reports and a perusal of valuation reports show that there is no property where 14.90 sq. mt. or 15.63 sq. mt. or 30.53 sq. mt of land was acquired. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 133/140
282. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that any land of this IP was acquired in the acquisition proceeding in question. Resultantly, claim of IP no. 196 is rejected.
283. Claim of IP No.197 : IP No. 197 is Shri Ranbir Singh son of Sh. Jug Lal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ35A, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi out of khasra number 68/19/ admeasuring 217 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 17.12.1980. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, receipts of property tax, rectification order of MCD, electricity bills and site photographs which were exhibited as Ex.IP197/A to N respectively.
284. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 197 appears at serial number 125 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/19/1 this IP was in possession of 14.53 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation report got prepared by the collector through PWD which is Ex.RW1/125 it is mentioned that Sh. Ranbir Singh IP No. 197 was in possession of 14.53 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/19/1. Therefore, claim of IP No. 197 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation report Ex.RW1/125. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 197 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 14.53 sq. meter of land.
285. Claim of IP No.198 : IP No.198 is Shri S. B. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 134/140 Aggarwal son of Sh. S. K. Aggarwal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ611A, Village Palam out of khasra number 64/6 admeasuring 500 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 05.05.2000. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, registered will, special Power of Attorney, possession letter, indemnity bond, electricity bill and application given to the collector for compensation which were exhibited as Ex.IP198/A to H respectively.
286. Unfortunately no counsel came to address arguments on behalf of this IP. This IP claims that land in question which was acquired in these acquisition proceedings was in khasra no. 64/6. However, a perusal of demarcation report filed on record by the collector shows that no part of land out of khasra no. 64/6 is subject matter of this reference petition.
287. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 198 does not appear. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/1 to 179 name of this applicant is not referred. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that any portion of land of this IP was taken in acquisition proceedings in question. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP in present reference petition and the claim of IP No. 198 is, therefore, rejected.
288. Claim of IP No. 199: IP No.199 is Shri Mukesh Aggarwal son of Shri S. K. Aggarwal. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number WZ611, Village Palam out of khasra number LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 135/140 64/6 admeasuring 100 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 05.05.2000. Reliance is placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, registered will, special Power of Attorney, possession letter, indemnity bond, election I card were exhibited as Ex.IP199/A to H respectively.
289. Unfortunately no counsel came to address arguments on behalf of this IP. This IP claims that land in question which was acquired in these acquisition proceedings was in khasra no. 64/6. However, a perusal of demarcation report filed on record by the collector shows that no part of land out of khasra no. 64/6 is subject matter of this reference petition.
290. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP no. 199 does not appear. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/1 to 179 name of this applicant is not referred. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that any portion of land of this IP was taken in acquisition proceeding in question. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP in present reference proceedings and the claim of IP no. 199 if, therefore, rejected.
291. Claim of IP No.200: IP No.200 is Smt. Sushma Aggarwal Wife of Sh. S. B. Aggarwal. Claim of this IP is that she was owner of property number WZ611, Village Palam out of khasra number 64/6 admeasuring 150 sq. yards. This IP claims that she had purchased this land on 05.05.2000. Reliance is placed on registered General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, registered will, special Power LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 136/140 of Attorney, possession letter, indemnity bond, election I card which were exhibited as Ex.IP200/A to H respectively.
292. Unfortunately no counsel came to address arguments on behalf of this IP. This IP claims that land in question which was acquired in these acquisition proceedings was in khasra no. 64/6. However, a perusal of demarcation report filed on record by the collector shows that no part of land out of khasra no. 64/6 is subject matter of this reference petition.
293. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 200 does not appear. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/1 to 179 name of this applicant is not referred. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that any portion of land of this IP was taken in acquisition proceedings in question. Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP in present reference proceeding and the claim of IP No. 200 if, therefore, rejected.
294. Claim of IP No.201 : IP No.201 is Shri Pawan Oberoi son of Shri Chiranji Lal. This IP was not named in the reference petition initially and the name of this IP came on record when he filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for his impleadment. Said application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and this IP was impleaded as IP No. 201. Claim of this IP is that he was owner of property number RZ614 Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi admeasuring 394 sq. yards. This IP claims that he had purchased this land on 02.05.1995. Reliance is LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 137/140 placed on General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, MCD ad hoc application form of shops / commercial establishments, electricity bills, meter change report, property tax receipts and ration card which were exhibited as Ex.IP200/A to H respectively.
295. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 201 appears at serial number 51 and 52 where it is stated that in khasra number 68/24 this IP was in possession of 20 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/51 and 52 it is mentioned that Sh. Pawan Oberoi IP No. 201 was in possession of 20 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/24. Therefore, claim of IP no. 201 is also supported by the demarcation report as well as valuation reports Ex.RW1/51 and 52. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 201 is partly allowed and he is held entitled for compensation for 20 sq. meter of land.
296. Claim of IP No. 202: IP No. 202 is Shri Raj Solanki son of Late Shri Balwan Singh Solanki. Case of this IP in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is that he was owner of property number RZ36/2A in village Palam admeasuring 47 sq. yards. Reliance is placed on sale deed dated 11.08.2005 executed by Smt. Arti Solanki in favour of this IP. Reliance is also made on bill of Delhi Jal Board as well as property tax receipt.
297. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 202 appears at serial number 123 and 124 where it is stated LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 138/140 that in khasra number 68/19/1 this IP was in possession of 23.64 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/123 and 124 it is mentioned that Sh. Raj Solanki IP No. 202 was in possession of 23.64 sq. meter of land in khasra number 68/19/1 where he was carrying on business in the name of Amit STD. However, it appears neither this IP has filed any claim petition nor entered witness box to prove his case. Therefore, in absence of claim and in absence of any evidence no relief can be given to this IP.
298. Claim of IP No. 203: IP No. 203 is Shri Dharam Dev Solanki son of Shri Hari Kishan Solanki. Case of this IP in application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is that he was owner of property measuring 200 sq. yards in khasra Number 69/15 in Raj NagarI, Palam Colony, area of village Palam, New Delhi. Reliance is placed on GPA dated 10.02.1984, deed of agreement and affidavit.
299. In the demarcation report prepared by the collector name of IP No. 203 appears at serial number 94 and 95 where it is stated that in khasra number 69/15 this IP was in possession of 25.90 sq. meter of land which is going to be adversely effected by the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, in valuation reports got prepared by the collector through PWD which are Ex.RW1/94 and 95 it is mentioned that Sh. Dharam Dev Solanki IP No. 203 is in possession of 25.90 sq. meter of land in khasra number 69/15. However, it appears that neither this IP has filed an claim petition nor he has entered witness box to prove any of his title documents. LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 139/140 Therefore, no relief can be given to this IP.
300. Reference petition is answered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to the LAC southWest for information as well as compliance. Copy of this order be also given to the counsel for DDA to carry out directions of Hon'ble High Court in order dated 15.03.2007 in Contempt Case No. 690702 (2005).
301. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on the 4th day of July, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC NO. 52/09/05 Page 140/140