Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Amar Singh (Since Deceased) Through Lrs on 15 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (01) NORTH: ROHINI COURTS :
DELHI
LAC NO. 1680/16
Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector North,
DM Office at Alipur, Delhi
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Amar Singh (since deceased) Through LRs.
A. Smt. Savitri Devi (Widow)
B. Sh. Subhash (Son)
C. Smt. Bala Devi (Daughter)
D. Smt. Bimla Devi (Daughter)
E. Smt. Dayawati (Daughter)
R/o H.No. 179, Jhimro Wali Gali, Village Tikri Khurd, Narela,
Delhi - 40
2. Sh. Mahavir Singh (since deceased) Through LRs.
A. Smt. Somwati (Widow)
B. Sh. Deepak Kumar (Son)
C. Sh. Bittu (Daughter)
D. Smt. Ashu (Daughter)
E. Smt. Manju (Daughter)
F. Smt. Anu (Daughter)
R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi
2(A) Smt. Laxmi D/o late Sh. Jai Ram
3. Sh. Bharat Singh (Since deceased) Through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Jai Ram
A. Sh. Sunny (Son)
R/o 1197 T, Near NDPL Office, Kanjhawala, Delhi - 81
4. Sh. Ganga Sahai (Since deceased) Through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Chajju Ram
A. Sh. Sahab Singh (Since deceased) Through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Ganga Sahai
1. Sh. Bharat Singh (Son)
2. Sh. Dharam Vir (Son)
3. Sh. Devi Singh (Son)
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
4. Smt. Resham Devi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Devi (Daughter)
6. Smt. Sunia Devi (Daughter)
7. Smt. Chanderlkala (since deceased) Through LRs.
a. Sh. Vikram Singh (Son)
b. Sh. Bola Ram (Son)
c. Santosh (Daughter)
8. Sardar Singh (since deceased) through LRs
S/o late Sh. Sahab Singh
a. Smt. Angoori Devi (Wife)
b. Sh. Narender (Son)
c. Smt. Sarla Devi (Daughter)
d. Sh. Sanjeev (Son)
e. Smt. Manju (Daughter)
All R/o H.No. 179, Jhimro Wali Gali,
Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi 110040
B. Amar Singh (since decased) through LRs
S/o late Sh. Ganga Sahai
1. Smt. Savitri Devi (Widow)
2. Sh. Subhash (Son)
3. Smt. Bala Devi (Daughter)
4. Smt. Bimla Devi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Dayawati (Daughter)
R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi 40
C. Sh. Ram Singh (since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Ganga Sahai
1. Smt. Savitri Devi (Widow)
2. Sh. Zile Singh (Son)
3. Sh. Naresh Kumar (Son)
4. Sh. Rattan Singh (Son)
5. Sh. Balram (Son)
All R/o H.No. 179, Jhimro Wali Gali, Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi 110040
D. Sh. Balwan Singh (Son)
E. Mrs. Angoori Devi (Daughter) W/o Sh. Charan Singh
F. Mrs. Kela Devi (Daughter) W/o Sh. Kishan
G. Smt. Krishna Devi (Daughter) W/o Sh. Devinder Singh
H. Smt. Santra (Daugher) (since deceased) through LRs.
1. Budh Ram (Son)
All R/o H.No. 179, Jhimro Wali Gali,
Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 110040
5. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Amrit (since deceased) through LRs.
A. Smt. Dhanpati (Widow) (since deceased) through LRs.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
B. Randhir (Son)
C. Suresh (Son)
D. Sh. Mahavir Singh (since deceased) through LRs.
1. Bala Devi @ Raj Bala (Widow)
2. Rajesh (Son)
3. Rakesh (Son)
4. Surender (Son)
5. Naveen
E. Smt. Krishna Devi (Daughter)
F. Smt. Biroo Devi (Daughter)
G. Smt. Sunita Devi (Daughter)
H. Smt. Sheela Devi (Daughter)
All R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 40.
6. Sh. Har Kishan (since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Chajju Ram
A. Sh. Surat Singh (Son) (since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Leelawati (Widow)
2. Sh. Pritam (Son)
3. Smt. Sunita (Daughter)
4. Smt. Anita Devi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Pushpa Devi (Daughter)
6. Smt. Reena Devi (Daughter)
7. Smt. Anju (Daughter)
8. Smt. Jyoti Devi (Daughter)
B. Smt. Sushila (since deceased) through LRs.
1. Deepanshi (minor daughter)
2. Neha (minor daughter)
All R/o H.No. 195, Jhimro Wali Gali,
Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 110040
C. Sh. Sube Singh (Son)
R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi
D. Sh. Mahender Singh (Son) (since deceased through LRs)
1. Smt. Om Wati (Widow)
2. Sh. Satish Kumar (Son)
3. Sh. Kanwal Singh (Son)
4. Smt. Savita Devi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Satwati Devi (Daughter)
6. Smt. Saroj Devi (Daughter)
7. Smt. Rachna Devi (Daughter)
All R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi
E. Sh. Surinder (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
1. Sh. Satbir (Son)
2. Sh. Jasbir (Son)
F. Sh. Rajender (Son)
G. Sh. Ram Kumar (Son)
H. Smt. Murti Devi (Daughter)
I. Smt. Santosh Devi (Daughter)
All R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 40
7. Sh. Hari Singh ((Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Chajju
1. Sh. Bir Singh (Son)
2. Sh. Sri Ram (Son)
All R/o H.No. 180, Jhimro Wali Gali,
Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 110040
8. Sh. Govardhan (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Kundan
A. Sh. Prem Singh (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Ram Kali (Widow)
2. Sh. Singh Ram (Son)
3. Sh. Shyamlal (Son)
4. Sh. Krishan Lal (Son)
5. Smt. Veer Mati (Daughter)
6. Smt. Maya Devi (Daughter)
7. Sh. Ram Prakash (Son)
B. Smt. Dhanpati (Daughter)
9. Sh. Hukam Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Munsi Ram
A. Smt. Birmati Devi (Widow)
B. Sh. Surender Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Sushila Devi (Widow)
2. Sh. Manjit (Son)
3. Sh. Manoj Kumar (Son)
4. Sh. Vinod (Son)
10. Smt. Laxmi Devi (Since deceased) through LRs.
Widow of late Sh. Kartar Singh
A. Sh. Satish (Son)
B. Smt. Nirmala
11. Sh. Dhan Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o Sh. Lahari Singh
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
A. Sh. Balwan Singh (Son)
R/o H.No. 35, Jhimro Wali Gali, Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi - 110040
B. Sh. Chander Hass (Son)
R/o H.No. 132, Jhimro Wali Gali, Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi - 110040.
C. Kanwal Singh (Son)
R/o H.No. 35, Jhimro Wali Gali, Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi - 110040
D. Smt. Bhagwati Devi (Daughter) (Since deceased)
through LRs.
1. Sh. Ram Kishan (Husband)
2. Sh. Gaurav (Son)
3. Sh. Mohit (Son)
E. Smt. Chanderkalal (Daughter)
F. Smt. Bedo Devi (Daughter)
G. Smt. Chando Devi @ Chand Kaur (Daughter)
12. Sh. Rai Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o Sh. Khiyali Ram
A. Sh. Balbir (Son)
B. Sh. Raghubir (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Vedo (Wife)
2. Sh. Pawan (Son)
3. Smt. Poonam (Daughter)
4. Smt. Kavita Devi (Daughter)
C. Sh. Randhir Singh (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Asha Devi (Wife)
2. Sh. Manish Kumar (Son)
3. Sh. Rahul (Son)
4. Smt. Meenakshi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Pooja Devi (Daughter)
All R/o 13, Near Krishan Kid School, Village Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi - 40
D. Smt. Sona Devi (Daughter)
E. Smt. Chandro Devi (Daughter) (Since deceased) through
LRs.
1. Sh. Sanjay (Son)
2. Sh. Manoj (Son)
3. Sh. Santosh (Son)
4. Smt. Kallo (Daughter)
5. Sh. Joginder (Son)
F. Smt. Sheela Devi (Daughter)
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
(Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Sh. Prakash (Husband)
2. Smt. Geeta (Daughter)
3. Sh. Suresh (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
A. Smt. Pooja (Daughter)
B. Sh. Deepak (Son)
G. Smt. Dhanpati (Daughter)
(Since deceased) through LRs
1. Sh. Balbir Singh (Husband)
2. Sh. Parveen (Son)
3. Sh. Vikash (Son)
4. Smt. Mamta (Daughter)
13. Smt. Gobindi
W/o late Sh. Tek Chand
14. Sh. Ram Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Kacheru
A. Sh. Prem Singh (Son )
B. Sh. Karan Singh (Son)
C. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Sheela Devi (Widow)
2. Sh. Arjun (Minor Son)
3. Smt. Sangeeta (Daughter)
4. Sh. Dhoni (minor son)
D. Sh. Madan Kumar (Son)
E. Sh. Anil Kumar (Son)
F. Smt. Lachmi Devi (Widow)
G. Smt. Shakuntla Devi (Daughter)
All R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 40
H. Smt. Kanta Devi (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Puran Chand
R/o Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak (Haryana)
15. Sh. Kacheru (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o Sh. Kharati
A. Smt. Prakasho Devi (Daughter)
B. Smt. Kishmi Devi (Daughter)
C. Smt. Phollo Devi (Daughter)
D. Smt. Shanti Devi (Daughter)
E. Sh. Om Prakash (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Smt. Rameshwari (widow)
2. Sh. Suresh (Son)
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
3. Sh. Raju (Son)
4. Sh. Vijay Kumar (Since deceased) through LR.
a. Sh. Deepak (Son)
b. Smt. Anju Devi (Daughter)
c. Smt. Meenu Devi (Daughter)
d. Smt. Savita Devi (Daughter)
e. Smt. Renu Devi (Daughter)
5. Sh. Satish (Son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
a. Smt. Veena Devi (Widow)
b. Smt. Lalita Devi (Minor Daughter)
c. Sh. Vishal (minor son)
d. Sh. Nishant (minor son)
6. Sh. Rajbir (Son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
a. Smt. Anju (Widow)
b. Sh. Lokesh (son)
c. Smt. Pooja (Daughter)
d. Sh. Ram Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
i. Sh. Prem Singh (Son)
ii. Sh. Karan Singh (Son)
iii. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
a. smt. Sheela Devi (widow)
b. Smt. Sangeeta (Daughter)
c. Sh. Dhoni (minor son)
iv. Sh. Madan Kumar (son)
v. Sh. Anil Kumar (Son)
vi. Smt. Lachmi Devi (Widow)
vii. Smt. Shakuntala Devi (Daughter)
All R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi -
40
viii. Smt. Kanta Devi (Daughter)
W/o Puran Chand R/o Bahadurgarh,
Rohtak, Haryana.
16. Sh. Om Prakash (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Kacheru
1. Smt. Rameshwari (widow)
2. Sh. Suresh (Son)
3. Sh. Raju (Son)
4. Sh. Vijay Kumar (Since deceased) through LR.
a. Sh. Deepak (Son)
b. Smt. Anju Devi (Daughter)
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
c. Smt. Meenu Devi (Daughter)
d. Smt. Savita Devi (Daughter)
e. Smt. Renu Devi (Daughter)
5. Sh. Satish (Son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
a. Smt. Veena Devi (Widow)
b. Smt. Lalita Devi (Minor Daughter)
c. Sh. Vishal (minor son)
d. Sh. Nishant (minor son)
6. Sh. Rajbir (Son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
a. Smt. Anju (Widow)
b. Sh. Lokesh (son)
c. Smt. Pooja (Daughter)
17. Sh. Balraj Sharma (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o Sh. Moti Ram
A. Smt. Ram Pati (Widow)
B. Smt. Anu (Daughter)
C. Smt. Sonia Radha (Daughter)
(Abandoned his claim in favour of IP 20 A Smt.Chand Kaur and
IP 20 B Sh. Sat Narain)
18. Sh. Sahab Singh (Since deceased) through LRs.
S/o late Sh. Ganga Sahai
1. Sh. Bharat Singh
2. Sh. Dharam Vir (Son)
3. Sh. Devi Singh (Son)
4. Smt. Resham Devi (Daughter)
5. Smt. Devi (Daughter)
6. Smt. Sunia Devi (Daughter)
7. Smt. Chanderlkala (since deceased) Through LRs.
a. Sh. Vikram Singh (Son)
b. Sh. Bola Ram (Son)
c. Santosh (Daughter)
8. Sardar Singh (since deceased) through LRs
S/o late Sh. Sahab Singh
a. Smt. Angoori Devi (Wife)
b. Sh. Narender (Son)
c. Smt. Sarla Devi (Daughter)
d. Sh. Sanjeev (Son)
e. Smt. Manju (Daughter)
All R/o H.No. 179, Jhimro Wali Gali,
Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 110040
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
19. Sh. Lachmi
W/o Sh. Nafe Singh
20.A Smt. Chand Kaur (Since deceased) through LRs
A. Sh. Jagdish Sharma (Since deceased) through LRs
1. Rajeev Kumar (Son)
2. Anil Kumar (Son)
3. Raj Kumar (Son) (Since deceased) through LRs
a. Sumanlata (Widow)
4. Rakesh Sharma (Son)
5. Meena Devi (Daughter)
B. Sh. Radha Kishan (Son)
C. Sh. Ram Chander Gautam (Son)
D. Sh. Sri Pal Sharma (Son)
E. Sh. Balraj Sharma (Since deceased) through LRs
1. Smt. Ram Pati (Widow)
2. Smt. Anu (Daughter)
3. Smt. Sonia Radha (Daughter)
F. Sh. Satya Narain (Son)
(Since deceased) through LRs.
1. Suresh Devi (Son)
2. Jitender Gautam (Son)
3. Ritu (Daughter)
4. Rekha (Daughter)
G. Sh. Gopal Kishan (S)
1. Sheela (widown)
2. Pawan Kumar (Son)
3. Devdutt Gautam (Son)
4. Ganesh Gautam (Son)
H. Smt. Omwati (Daughter)
i. Smt. Phoolwati (Daughter)
j. Smt Ram Kali (daughter in law)
k. Smt. Prem (daughter in law)
l. Sh. Mahavir (Grand son)
m. Sh. Dinesh (Grand son)
n. Sh. Naresh (Grand son)
o. Sh. Mukesh (Grand Son)
p. Ms. Buti (Grand Daughter)
q. Ms. Geeta (Grand Daughter)
r. Smt. Bala (Daughter in law)
s. Sh. Hari Om (Grand son)
t. Ms. Pankaj (Grand Daughter)
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
u. Ms. Raj Bala Devi (Daughter in law)
20 B. Sh. Satya Narain (S)
R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 40
21. Pradhan Gaon Sabha Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi.
22. M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Anand Khemka
1106, Ashoka Estate,
24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
&
Sh. Suresh Anand S/o late Sh. L.M.Sunderiyal
R/o B 76, Pratap Vihar,
Khora, Noida 201301
23. M/s Mansarovar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.
S 23, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi
24. Sh. Ram Kumar
25. Sh. Ram Chander
both S/o late Jeet Ram
R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi - 40
Date of receipt of Reference U/s. 31 of LA Act : 10.03.1988
Date of Arguments : 27.03.2019
Date of Decision: 15.04.2019
JUDGEMENT :
1. This judgment shall decide and answer the Reference under section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act). Running in its 32nd year, this is the oldest case of this court.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
2. The reference is an offshoot of the acquisition proceeding of land of village Tikri Khurd that were finally concluded vide Award no. 148/8687 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the LAC). Since there was a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation, with respect to total 147 Bigha 2 Biswas of land falling in various khasra numbers, the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The LAC remitted an amount of Rs. 13,83,432.33 being the compensation of the acquired land that was deposited in the bank.
3. As per the reference, initially there were 20 interested persons (hereinafter referred to as IPs). Notices were issued to all the IPs who filed their respective claims. The IPs namely Smt. Chand Kaur and Sh. Satya Narain were added subsequently Rather they were substituted in place of IP 17 Balraj Sharma. The IPs namely M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Mansarovar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. were impleaded u/o 22 rule 10 CPC. The IPs filed their respective claims. Since the parties kept on being impleaded LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini /added/substituted, the numbers given to various IPs completely lost the track. The LRs and even Lrs of the LRs of several IPs were substituted during the long pendency of the case. An amended memo of parties was filed on 25.01.2019 that was agreeable to all concerned. On the basis of this Memorandum, the index page of this judgment has been prepared and henceforth, this shall be referred while referring to any IP.
CLAIMS
4. The claims of the IPs are being detailed in a tabulated form as under:
S.No Ip No. Name Of The IP Details Of The Basis Of Claim Land In Respect Of Which Claim Is Made
1. IP 1 Amar Singh S/o Ganga Kh. No. 16/1 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse Sahai 16) cultivatory possession over Gaon & 16/10 (416) Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s 86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
2. IP 2 a) Mahavir Singh Kh. No. 16/11 (4 Joint adverse cultivatory possession
b) Bharat Singh both S/o 16) over Gaon Sabha land.
IP 3 Jai Ram
3. IP 4 Ganga Sahai s/o Chajju Kh. No. 16/9 (4 Adverse cultivatory possession over
Ram through LRs Sahaib 16) Gaon Sabha land. The suit for
Singh, Ram Singh, & 16/12 ( 416) injectment u/s 86 A filed by Gaon
BalwanSingh, Amar Sabha was dismissed by the Revenue
Singh Assistant.
4. IP 5 Om Prakash S/o Amrit Kh. No. 16/19 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land.
5. IP 6 Hari Krishan S/o Kh. No. 16/8 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse Chhajju Ram 16), cultivatory possession over Gaon 16/11 (28) Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s & 16/13 (416) 86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
6. IP 7 Hari Singh S/o Chhajju Kh. No. 16/14 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s 86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
7. IP 8 Goverdhan S/o Kundan Kh. No. 16/15 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s 86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
8. IP 9 Hukum Singh S/o Munsi Kh. No. 16/20 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse Ram 16) cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land.
9 IP 10 Laxmi Devi W/o kartar Kh. No. 17/25 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon
Sabha land.
10 IP 11 Dhan Singh S/o Lehri Kh. No. 16/17 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon
Sabha land.
11. IP 12 Rai Singh S/o Khayali Kh. No. 16/18 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon
Sabha land.
12. IP 1 3 Govindi W/o Tek Chand Kh. No. 16/22 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) cultivatory possession over Gaon
Sabha land.
13. IP 1 4 Ram Singh S/o Kh. No. 17/16 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
Kahchedu 16) cultivatory possession over Gaon
Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s
86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was
dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
14 IP 1 5 Khachedu S/o Khairati Kh. No. 17/14(4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
16) & 17/15 ( 4 cultivatory possession over Gaon
16) Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s
86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was
dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
15. IP 16 Om Prakash S/o Kh. No. 17/17 (4 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse
Khachedu 16) & 17/18 ( 4 cultivatory possession over Gaon
16) Sabha land. The suit for ejectment u/s
86 A filed by Gaon Sabha was
dismissed by the Revenue Assistant.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini 16 IP 17 Balraj Sharma S/o Moti Initially claimed in Abandoned his claim in favour of IP Ram respect of Kh. No. 20 A Smt.Chand Kaur and IP 20 B 17/22 (416) & Sh. Sat Narain 17/23 (416)
17. IP 18 Sahab Singh S/o late Sh. Kh. No. 16/4 (4 Ganga Sahai 16) 18 IP 19 Laxmi W/o Nafe Singh Kh. No. 16/21 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse ( 416) cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land.
19. IP 20 Smt. Chand Kaur Kh. No. 17/22 min Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse A (30), 17/22 ( 1 cultivatory possession over Gaon
16) & 17/23 ( 4 Sabha land.
16) Satya Narain Kh. NO. 17/24 ( 4 Satya Narain has claimed 1/11 share IP 20 16) in Kh. No. 17/22 & 17/23 being one B (added /substituted in of the 11 Lrs of Smt. Chand Kaur who place of IP 17 Balraj expired during trial. Besides that, Sharma) Satya Narain has also claimed full share in Kh.No. 17/24.
20. IP 21 Pradhan Gaon Sabha Claimed entire Village Tikri Khurd, compensation being the recorded Delhi. owner
21. IP 22 M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Claim Assignment deeds executed by Ltd. compensation of several IPs.
several khasra numbers as assignee in interest.
22. IP 23 Mansarovar Irrigation Claim Assignment deeds executed by Pvt. Ltd. compensation of several IPs.
several khasra numbers as assignee in interest.
23. IP 24 Ram Kumar & Ram Kh. No. 16/16 Acquired bhumidari rights by adverse & IP Chander both S/o late ( 416) cultivatory possession over Gaon 25 Sh. Jeet Ram Sabha land.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, IP 23/M/s Mansarovar Irrigation filed application under order 22 rule 10 CPC claiming that in the year 1989, the IPs namely Hari Krishan, Amar Singh, Laxmi Devi W/o Kartar, Om Prakash, Sahib Singh etc. (LRs of Ganga Sahai), Ram Kumar and Ram Chander have transferred/assigned their rights in the compensation amount vide separate Assignment Deeds. IP 22/M/s Jacks Aviation also moved a similar application u/o 22 rule 10 CPC stating that IPs namely Khachedu, Laxmi W/o Nafe Singh, Hari Singh, Govindi, Gordhan, Dhan Singh, Rai Singh, Om Prakash and Hukum Singh have transferred their rights in the compensation vide Assignment Deeds. These applications were initially allowed in the year 1991. Subsequently, it was observed in the order dated 28.02.1995 that the said substitution was made without recording the statement of the concerned IPs and court notices were issued. Thereafter, the said IPs kept on filing their objections against the applications of Mansarovar Irrigation and M/s Jacks Aviation. Finally, the applications were allowed vide order dated 16.02.2008. An appeal filed against the said order came to be LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 18.12.2014 and appeal was dismissed. From 2014 to 2018, the file remained virtually lost under the impression that file was still in the High Court. Finally, the file was traced out on 14.10.2018. Notices were again issued to the parties after the file was traced out.
6. Replies to the claims were filed by the respective opponents.
7. Issues were framed on 07.09.2007 and the only issue involved was which of the IP would be entitled to the compensation and to what extent.
EVIDENCE
8. IP 1 to 16, IP 18, IP19, IP 20 A (Chand Kaur), IP20 B Satya Narain, IP24 (Ram Kumar) & IP25 (Ram Chander) tendered their respective evidences by way of affidavit. The claims made by these IPs were reiterated in the evidence/affidavits. All these IPs relied upon the copies of khasra LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini girdawaris and khatonis from the year 1973 to 1986. The IPs further deposed that proceedings u/s 86 A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (in short, the DLR Act) were initiated and the same were dismissed. They also stated that initially, one Sh. Med Singh, Advocate was looking after their cases. Sh.Med Singh along with a covillager namely Shrikishan Sood stated to them that M/s Mansarovar Irrigation and M/s Jacks Aviation will help them in getting a compensation. On this misrepresentation, the signatures /thumb impressions were made by the IPs on the Assignment Deeds in favor of the said companies. The IPs further deposed that no amount was ever paid by the companies.
9. On behalf of M/s Jacks Aviation, Sh. Anup Singh, Record Keeper from the office of Sub Registrar was summoned and examined as IP 22W1. He brought the record pertaining to 10 Assignment Deeds each dated 02.05.1989 purportedly executed in favor of M/s Jacks Aviation. They were marked as Ex. J1 to Ex. J10.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
10. Sh. S. N. Dwivedi was also examined by M/s Jacks Aviation who deposed that several IPs were in possession of Gram Sabha land and had become bhoomidar by virtue of long possession. The said possessors namely Khacheru, Laxmi, Govindi, Goverdhan, Dhan Singh, Rai Singh, Om Prakash, Hookam Singh and Hari Singh initially filed their respective claims in the present reference. During the pendency, the said IPs entered into an agreement with Jacks Aviation and assigned their rights in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 55,000/ per acre. Rs. 15,000/ was paid in cash and the balance Rs.40,000/ was paid through Bankers Cheque. Ten assignment deeds marked as J1 to J10 were registered in the office of Sub Registrar. The said IPs handed over the girdawaris and the order under Section 86A in their favor.
11. On behalf of Mansarovar Irrigation, Sh. Gaurav Sethi was examined as a witness who also deposed that few other IPs entered into an agreement and executed assignment deeds Ex. M1 to M8 in favour of Mansarovar Irrigation in lieu of consideration. The details of the IPs who executed the assignment LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini deed alongwith consideration and payment details were filed as Annexure A.
12. One common witness of Mansarovar Irrigation and Jacks Aviation was Sh. Med Singh Advocate who was examined as IP 2223W2. He deposed that he drafted the Assignment Deeds Ex. M1 to M8 and Ex. J1 to Ex. J10. He also signed the said Assignment Deeds as a witness and also appeared before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the Assignment Deeds. He further deposed that the executants of the deeds were paid the consideration partly in cash and partly by Pay Orders and endorsement in this regard was duly made by the SubRegistrar. He further deposed that none of the executants raised any objection at that time. He identified his signatures on the Assignment Deeds. He was duly crossexamined on behalf of other IPs.
13. Final arguments have been addressed. Record has been carefully perused.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
14. Based on the rights on the basis of which the claim has been staked, the IPs can be divided into three categories. Category I is Gaon Sabha which is the recorded bhumidar of the entire land which is the subject matter of the reference. Amongst the Category II are the IPs whose claims are based on cultivatory possession over Gaon Sabha land. The Category III is belonging to Mansarovar Irrigation and Jacks Aviation (hereinafter referred to as the Company) who have asserted that some IPs belonging to Category II have assigned their rights in favor of the companies.
15. Since the Company joined the proceedings on account of events that took place during the pendency of the reference, I will examine their case later. I will firstly examine the entitlement of the Category I and II i.e. Gaon Sabha visavis cultivators.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
16. The Gaon Sabha did not contest the case. The IPs belonging to Category II have proved on record through khasra girdawari of long period that they were in cultivatory possession in land in question. Each of them further deposed that Gaon Sabha also initiated proceedings u/s 86 A for eviction of the land and the said proceedings were dismissed. This fact further corroborates that the Category II IPs were in cultivation of the land in question. Ld. Counsel for the Ips of category II submitted that the IPs had become entitled to be declared as a bhumidar and are entitled to 100% compensation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment titled as "Behari Vs. UOI 47( 1992) DLT 300 (DB)". In this case, 100% compensation was apportioned in favor of the possessor/cultivator of the agriculture land. It is noteworthy that Sh. Praveen Suri, Ld. Counsel for the IPs who have disputes with the Company filed copy of another judgment titled as "Gaon Sabha Kakrola Vs. Sarbati, LA Appeal No. 98/2007 Manu/DE/2411/2008" wherein the apportionment between Gaon Sabha and the possessor was made in the ratio of 40:60.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
17. Under the Delhi Land Refirms Act, 1954 (in short the DLR Act), a cultivator of agricultural land is entitled to be declared a Bhumidar u/s 85 if the owner fails to initiate eviction proceedings within the stipulated period. The Category II IPs categorically deposed the Gaon Sabha initiated the eviction proceedings but failed. This assertion has not been controverted or rebutted during trial. Under these circumstances, the status of the cultivator IPs was elevated to that of a Bhumidar u/s 85 of the DLR Act. Such cultivators are entitled to get the full compensation. Reliance can be placed in the judgment of "Behari Vs. UOI 47( 1992) DLT 300 (DB)". I accordingly hold that visa vis Gaon Sabha, the IPs of category II will be entitled to full compensation.
18. Amongst the Category II, a subctegory can be carved out for those IPs who have not executed any Assignment Deed and have no dispute with any other IP. Amongst them are :
◦ IP 14 Ram Singh in respect of 17/16 (416).LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini ◦ IP 18 Sh. Saheb Singh with respect to Kh. No. 16/4 (4
16).
◦ LRs of IP 20 A Smt. Chand Kaur in respect of Kh. No. 17/22 (416) & 17/23 (416) ◦ IP 20 B Sh. Satya Narain in respect of Kh. No. 17/24 (4
16).
I hold that they will be entitled to full compensation for the land mentioned against their names.
19. Now, I will examine the dispute regarding the assignment deeds. The IPs and the details of land in respect of which assignment deeds have been executed are given as under in a tabulated form:
IP No. IP Name Land (Kh. No and Assignment Deeds Exhibit.
Area) favouring No.
1 Amar Singh 16/10 (416) M/s Mansarovar M 1 & M2
16/1 (416) Irrigation
2 & 3 Mahavir & 16 /11 (28) M/s Mansarovar M6
Bharat Irrigation
4 Ganga Sahai 16/19(416) & M/s Mansarovar M4
through LRs 16/12 (416) Irrigation
5 Om Prakash 16/19(416) M/s Jacks Aviation J1
6 Hari Kishan 16/8 (416) 16/11 M/s Mansarovar M8
(28) & 16/13 (4 Irrigation
16)
7 Hari Singh 16/14 (416) M/s Jacks Aviation J2
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini 8 Govardhan 16/15 (416) M/s Jacks Aviation J8 9 Hukum Singh 16/20 (416) M/s Jacks Aviation J10 10 Laxmi Devi 17/25 (416) M/s Mansarovar M 7 Irrigation 11 Dhan Singh 16/17 (416) M/s Jacks Aviation J6 12 Rai Singh 16/18(416) M/s Jacks Aviation J9 13 Govindi 16/22(416) M/s Jacks Aviation J5 15 Khachedu 17/14(416) & M/s Jacks Aviation J3 & J7 17/15 (416) 16 Om Prakash 17/17(416) & M/s Mansarovar M 5 17/18 (416) Irrigation 19 Lachhmi W/o 16/21(416) M/s Jacks Aviation J4 Nafe Singh 24 & Ram Kumar & 16/16(416) M/s Mansarovar M3 25 Ram Chander Irrigation
20. Ld. Counsel for the concerned IPs Sh. Praveen Suri argued that the assignment deeds were got executed by the company by playing a fraud that was committed with the help of Sh. Med Singh, Adovate and another person Shri Kishan Sood. He argued that no consideration amount was paid by the Company to any of the IP. He contended that Sh. Med Singh, Advocate misused his fiduciary relationship and committed fraud.
21. Ld. Counsel for the Company Sh. J.K.Jain argued that the assignment deeds were duly executed and registered LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini after payment of consideration amount partly through cash and partly through bank draft as clearly mentioned in the deeds itself. He argued that the burden of proving the alleged fraud was upon the IPs who have miserably failed on this aspect. He argued that duly registered documents cannot be disregarded on a bald allegation by the executors. He submitted that time and again, it has been held and affirmed that registration of documents ensures safety and transparency to avoid fraud and forgery. He further submitted that the registered documents carry a presumption of genuineness. He relied upon the following judgments :
A. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. SPL (C) No. ........of 2009 (CC No. 5804 of 2009) decided on May 15, 2009.
B. Deep Chand and Ors Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Anr. WP No. 6305 of 1974, D/15121978 C. Official liquidator Vs. Sri Krihna Deo and Ors. in Appln. No. 3 of 1957, arising out of Company case No. 7 of 1955 D/1605 1958.
D. Govind Anant Goltekar & Ors Vs. Dasharath Deoba Goltekar in S.A.No. 52 of 2000 D/ 03032006.LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 32
Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
22. Sh. J. K. Jain further submitted that till the time the Assignment Deeds are not declared null and void by a competent court, the IPs cannot be permitted to assail the genuineness of the transaction. He relied upon the judgment titled as Phoolwati & Ors Vs. Ram Dei & Ors. in IA Nos 527980/2007 and CS (OS) No.1462 of 2006 decided on 13.03.2008.
23. He further submitted that the SubRegistrar duly made an endorsement on the assignment deeds regarding the payment of consideration amount.
24. The case canvassed by the IPs is that assignment deeds were executed by playing fraud upon them specially by Sh.Med Singh, Advocate who misused the fiduciary relationship of lawyer and client. It is enshrined in Section 102 of the Evidence Act that the burden to prove a fact is on the party who alleges it. It was the IPs who have alleged fraud and they were under heavy burden to prove the said allegation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the ratio of case titled as Ravindra Dayal vs Shashi Mehra 2015 VIII AD Delhi 217 (para 23). Total 18 assignment deeds were executed and duly registered LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini and IPs have canvassed a case that all of them were defrauded. It seems improbable that 18 people, who were having independent rights, were being misrepresented at the same time but none of them could call the (alleged) bluff. Many IPs have their signatures on the assignment deeds and it can be presumed that they were not illiterate. The pendency of the present proceedings have been clearly mentioned in the assignment deeds. It is hard to believe that so many people having their independent right could be defrauded in such a manner.
25. The assignment deeds have not merely been executed but went through the scrutiny of the SubRegistrar who is a Govt. Official and is presumed to have acted as per law. All the assignment deeds bear endorsement of the SubRegistrar regarding payment of consideration amount and it can be presumed that such endorsement was made by the SubRegistrar after due verification from the party concerned. The duly registered assignment deeds cannot be discarded on the bald allegation of fraud.
LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini
26. No proceedings have been initiated to declare the assignment deeds as null and void. Till the assignment deeds are declared null and void by a competent court, they cannot be discarded. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment in Bhupender Jit Singh Vs Sonu Kumar Manu/DE/3193/2017.
27. Ld. Counsel for the IPs Sh. Praveen Suri submitted that no consideration amount was paid at the time of the assignment deeds. He further submitted that in case of the assignment deed Ex. M2, M3, M4 & J6, there are discrepancies in the mode of payment mentioned in the assignment deed and the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar. I have perused the said assignment deeds and the discrepancies appear to be very minor and technical which are not going to the root of the case.
28. Sh. Suri further contended that the IPs categorically deposed that they did not receive any consideration amount and there is no suggestion to the IPs by the counsel for the company. If a fact is mentioned in a document reduced into writing, no one can be permitted to lead an oral evidence contrary to the LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini document. When the document/assignment deeds mention about the payment and there is also an endorsement by the Sub Registrar on the document, the IPs cannot be permitted to orally depose something which vary alter or contradict the written document. The Ld counsel for the company duly suggested that the assignment deeds were signed after fully understanding the contents and without any misrepresentation. The absence of a specific suggestion regarding the consideration is inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the case.
29. The case projected by the IPs is that the Company was to facilitate the disbursement of compensation hence some documents were executed by them. It was submitted that Sh. Med Singh portrayed to the IPs that the Company will facilitate and help in releasing the compensation. It is pertinent to note that before execution of the Assignment Deeds, not only the reference had already been made but also the IPs had filed their claims. This would imply that the IPs were well aware that the Court was seized off the matter. I failed to understand how LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini anyone can be made to believe that the release of compensation from the Court can be facilitated by him/her. The IPs can not be presumed to be so innocent or gullible that they could be tricked in such a manner.
30. Furthermore, the IPs had received a particular sum from the company at the time of execution of assignment deed as duly endorsed thereon. If there was a case that somebody was providing some services to the IPs, he would not have paid any amount to the IPs. On the contrary, he would have charged for the services. Now the IPs want the Court to believe that someone (company) agreed to give facilitating service to the IPs and at the same time agreed to make payment to the IPs. It is preposterous to even imagine such a charitable service by commercial entity.
31. After taking into account all the matters before me, I am of the view that the IPs have miserably failed to disprove the validity of the assignment deeds. They have failed to prove the allegation of fraud. The assignment deeds have been duly proved on record. The concerned IPs sold their rights /actionable claim LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini regarding the compensation of respective pieces of land in lieu of consideration amount. Accordingly, the assignor(s) were divested from claiming any compensation and the assignee became entitled to receive the compensation. The claims of the IPs mentioned in Column 1 of the table in Para 19 are rejected. The claims of the IPs mentioned in Column 4 of the table in Para 19 are allowed with respect to the land mentioned in Column 3 of the said table to the extent of full share.
32. Issues are accordingly decided. The following reliefs are granted/conclusions are made:
Full compensation is awarded to the following IPs • IP 14 Ram Singh in respect of 17/16 (416); • IP 18 Sh. Saheb Singh with respect to Kh. No. 16/4 (4
16);
• LRs of IP 20A Smt. Chand Kaur in respect of Kh. No. 17/22 (416) & 17/23 (416);
• IP 20B Sh. Satya Narain in respect of Kh. No. 17/24 (4
16);
• The claims of the IPs mentioned in Column 4 of the table in Para 19 are allowed with respect to the land LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini mentioned in Column 3 of the said table to the extent of full share;
• The claims of the IPs mentioned in Column 1 of the table in Para 19 are rejected.
• The claim of IP 21/Gaon Sabha is allowed for the compensation of the balance land.
33. The reference petition is answered.
34. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IPs in above terms as per above findings.
35. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC.
36. District Nazir will distribute the amount as per above observation to the entitled IP after receiving the amount from concerned bank on completion of necessary formalities, filing of necessary documents etc. Digitally signed
37. File be consigned to record room. NEERAJ by NEERAJ GAUR GAUR Date: 2019.04.23 15:47:07 +0530 Announced in the (NEERAJ GAUR) Open Court on 15.04.2019 Additional District Judge01 Rohini Courts, Delhi LAC No. 1680 /16 UOI Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 32 Author: Neeraj Gaur ADJ(01) North/Rohini