Delhi District Court
Lac No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union ... vs . Raghubir Singh 1/54 on 19 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 31A/10/07
New No. 28/16
Union of India
versus
1. Shri Raghbir Singh
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
(a). Siri Kishan - son
(b). Sh. Jeet Singh - son
(c). Sh. Abhimanyu - son
(d). Sh. Ravinder - son
(e). Smt. Birmati - widow
(f). Smt. Meena Devi - daughters
All r/o village Mundka, New Delhi
2. Shri Devender Singh Yadav
3. Shri Vijender Singh Yadav
4. Shri Virender Singh Yadav
All sons of Shri Surjan Singh
R/o village Mundka, New Delhi.
5. Shri Krishan Lal Aggarwal
s/o late Sh. Kedar Nath Aggarwal
6. Shri Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal
7. Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal
All R/o 5-B, Russel Street, GEM House,
Kolkatta-16.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 1/54
8. Smt Beena Goel
W/o Sh. Madan Lal
9. Shri Raj Kumar Goel
S/o Sh. Ram Partap
10. Smt. Susheela Goel
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel
11. Shri Brij Bhushan Goel
S/o Sh. Ram Partap Goel
All r/o A-2/240, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-64. .....Interested Parties
Award No. : 03/DC(W)/2005-06
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 27.01.2006
Date of institution of the case : 22.12.2007
Date of reserving of judgment : 29.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.08.2017
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) referred reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect to Award no. 03/DC(W)/2005-2006 measuring 9 Bigha and 5 Biswa in Khasra Nos. 6//22/2, 6//23/3, 6//24/3, 19//3/1, 19//4/1/1, 21//12/2 and 19//2/1 shown at Sl. No. 227 to 230 in the Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.49,71,635/- for the purpose of Rohini residential Scheme under P.D.D. The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 2/54
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons.
3. As per order dated 22.12.2007, the cheque No. 852163 dated 31.10.2007 of Rs.49,71,635/- was directed to be deposited in The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Shalimar Bagh, delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal year to year basis.
4. LRs of IP No. 1, namely, Sh. Krishan, Sh. Jeet Singh, Sh. Abhimanyu, Sh. Ravinder filed claim. It is stated that the claimants being the Bhumidar in possession of land bearing Kh. No. 6/22/2 (1-15), 6/23/3 (1-15), 6/24/3 (1-
11), 19/3/1 (1-1), 19/4/1/1 (0-18), 21/12/2 (1-4), 19/2/1 (1-1) total measuring 9 bigha 5 biswas situated in village Mundka, were enjoying the same for all purposes and all right, title, interest of the said land vested with them to the extent of half share and the balance half share was in the Bhoomidhari of Sh.Surjan Singh and after his death the same vested in the name of his sons, namely, Devender Singh Yadav, Virender Singh Yadav.
5. It is stated that the consolidation proceedings took place in the village and the pre-consolidation land of the claimant was amalgamated as per the provisions of the Consolidation Act and the valuation of the Holding of the claimants were assessed as per law. The repartition of the land as per the consolidation act took place and in lieu of the pre-consolidation land held and possessed by the claimant, the Consolidation Officer allotted the land of Khasra No. 6/22/2 (1-15), 6/23/3 (1-15), 6/24/3 (1-11), 19/3/1 (1-1), LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 3/54 19/4/1/1 (0-18), 21/12/2 (1-4), 19/2/1 (1-1) along with other khasra numbers to the claimants. It is stated that since the date of the allotment, till the announcement of the award the claimants are using, utilizing and enjoying the land for all purposes without the interference indulgence of anybody else. The possession of the acquired land was taken from the claimants only.
6. It is stated that the Collector as per the verification on the spot, revenue record and as per the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer assessed the compensation in respect of the abovesaid acquired land in the name of the claimant as per their shares of 1/6th each. No body else remained the bhoomidar in possession of the said land which is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Delhi Land Revenue Act and only as per the said Act the right, title and interest of the persons are derived. The claimants seek that the compensation of the acquired land mentioned above be paid to the claimant as per their share.
7. Reply filed on behalf of Smt. Sushila Goel, Smt.Veena Goel, Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel to the claim filed by Sh. Krishan, Sh. Jeet Singh, Sh. Abhimanyu, Sh. Ravinder. The answering respondents have denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that before the LAC, the answering respondents had claimed the compensation on the basis of the sale deed in their favour and to the said claim of the answering respondents, the claimants had filed objections with dishonest intentions and ulterior motives. It is stated that LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 4/54 neither before the LAC nor before this court the present claimants have denied the execution and existence of the valid sale deed in favour of the answering respondents for the land measuring 5 Bigha 2 Biswa out of Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min).
8. It is stated that after purchasing of the land measuring 5 Bigha 2 Biswa out of Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min), by amending the consolidation scheme of village Mundka, the land in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) was included in extended Lal dora/ Phirni and consequently the land under acquisition for which the claim is referred to this court, was allotted in lieu of the said land owned by the answering respondents and comprise in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min). It is stated that since the ownership of the answering respondents to the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) was not disputed by Sh. Surjan singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh as such the answering respondents had become the owners/ bhumidhar of the land allotted in lieu of the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min). It is stated that against the inclusion of the land comprised in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min), Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh and the answering respondents had jointly challenged the said orders of the consolidation authorities before various forums including before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition no. 348/93. In the said proceedings it was the case of Sh. Surjan singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh that they have sold the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) and answering respondents are admitted as owners/bhumidar of the land allotted in lieu of the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) and LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 5/54 answering respondents have every right, title and interest in the said land and the said Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh were left with no right, title or interest in the said land and consequently also in the land under acquisition. Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh have died and their successors in interest are making claims to the compensation contrary to the stand taken by Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh.
9. Reply also filed by IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7, namely, Sh.K.L. Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh.Raj Kumar Aggarwal to the claim of the claimants Sh.Krishan, Sh. Jeet Singh, Sh. Abhimanyu and Sh.Ravinder. The IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have denied the averments made by claimants in their claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are entitled for the compensation referred to this court as the answering IPs are the genuine owner in respect of land purchased by them through registered sale deeds dated 24.12.1985. The present compensation has been referred to the court of the land which was allotted to Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh.Surjan Singh, having half share each, of whose the claimants are the legal representatives in lieu of preconsolidation land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 total measuring 5 bighas 05 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka. After sale of the aforesaid land vide above sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 Sh. Raghbir Singh, father of the claimants and Sh. Surjan Singh have left with no right, title or interest qua the land sold by them to the answering IPs. The registered sale deeds have not been disputed or challenged or sought declaration being null and void in any court of law since the date of LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 6/54 knowledge till date and thus the sale deeds being genuine and authentic cannot be qustioned in any manner by the claimants herein. The compensation referred by the LAC to the court in respect of the land which was allotted in the name of Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh including the land sold by them to the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and thus the compensation if any is liable to be awarded in the name of IP Nos. 5,6 and 7 of the land acquired.
10. It is stated that the claim is an abuse of the process of law and just because of the reason the mutation, if any, was not recorded in the revenue record do not make the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 disentitle from claiming the compensation of the land which was allotted in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9. It is stated that for the sake of brevity the claim of the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 may also be read as part of the claim under reply.
11. It is further stated that the repartitioned land baring Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 was further considered and Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh were again allotted subject land of which the compensation has been referred to this Court and thus excluding the land purchased by the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 vide aforesaid sale deeds, the sellers Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh cannot derive any benefit/ fruits of the land which has already been sold by them and the compensation is liable to be paid to the IP Nos. 5,6 and 7 to the extent of the land purchased by them from the land of Sh.raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 7/54
12. It is stated that because the name of the purchaser/IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was not recorded in the revenue record for technical purposes and the mutation cannot be recorded in revenue record which is required for fiscal purposes and the sanctions of the mutation do not confer any bhumidari, ownership, right, title or interest either in favour of seller or in favour of the purchaser in the event of any sale as mutation is merely a formal requirement for updating the revenue record periodically from time to time. The non- sanction of mutation in favour of the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for technical reasons or otherwise do not disentitle the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for payment of compensation and do not make entitle the seller to take any advantage or benefit from the land already sold by seller and left with no right title or interest therein. It is stated that the claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed and compensation be awarded and pay to the answering IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
13. IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Sh. Devender Singh Yadav, Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav and Sh. Virender Singh Yadav, all sons of Sh. Surjan Singh have also filed their claim. It is stated that the claimants being the Bhumidar in possession of land bearing Kh. No. 6/22/2 (1-15), 6/23/3 (1-15), 6/24/3 (1-11), 19/3/1 (1-1), 19/4/1/1 (0-18), 21/12/2 (1-4), 19/2/1 (1-1) total measuring 9 bigha 5 biswas situated in village Mundka, were enjoying the same for all purposes and all right, title, interest of the said land vested with them to the extent of half share and the balance half share was in the Bhoomidhari of Sh.Raghbir Singh. Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh.Surjan Singh were the bhoomidar in possession of the entire land.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 8/54
14. It is stated that the consolidation proceedings took place in the village and the pre-consolidation land of the claimant was amalgamated as per the provisions of the Consolidation Act and the valuation of the Holding of the claimants were assessed as per law. The repartition of the land as per the consolidation act took place and in lieu of the pre-consolidation land held and possessed by the claimant, the Consolidation Officer allotted the land of Khasra No. 6/22/2 (1-15), 6/23/3 (1-15), 6/24/3 (1-11), 19/3/1 (1-1), 19/4/1/1 (0-18), 21/12/2 (1-4), 19/2/1 (1-1) along with other khasra numbers to the claimants. It is stated that since the date of the allotment, till the announcement of the award the claimants are using, utilizing and enjoying the land for all purposes without the interference indulgence of anybody else. The possession of the acquired land was taken from the claimants only.
15. It is stated that the Collector as per the verification on the spot, revenue record and as per the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer assessed the compensation in respect of the abovesaid acquired land in the name of the claimant as per their shares of 1/6th each. No body else remained the bhoomidar in possession of the said land which is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Delhi Land Revenue Act and only as pr the said Act the right, title and interest of the persons are derived. The claimants seek that the compensation of the acquired land mentioned above be paid to the claimant as per their share.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 9/54
16. Reply filed on behalf of Smt. Sushila Goel, Smt.Veena Goel, Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel to the claim filed by Sh. Devender Singh Yadav, Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav and Sh.Virender Singh. The answering respondents have denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that before the LAC, the answering respondents had claimed the compensation on the basis of the sale deed in their favour and to the said claim of the answering respondents, the claimants had filed objections with dishonest intentions and ulterior motives. It is stated that neither before the LAC nor before this court the present claimants have denied the execution and existence of the valid sale deed in favour of the answering respondents for the land measuring 5 Bigha 2 Biswa out of Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min).
17. It is stated that after purchasing of the land measuring 5 Bigha 2 Biswa out of Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min), by amending the consolidation scheme of village Mundka, the land in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) was included in extended Lal dora/ Phirni and consequently the land under acquisition for which the claim is referred to this court, was allotted in lieu of the said land owned by the answering respondents and comprise in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min). It is stated that since the ownership of the answering respondents to the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) was not disputed by Sh. Surjan singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh as such the answering respondents had become the owners/ bhumidhar of the land allotted in lieu of the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min). It is stated that against the inclusion of the land comprised in LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 10/54 Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min), Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh and the answering respondents had jointly challenged the said orders of the consolidation authorities before various forums including before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition no. 348/93. In the said proceedings it was the case of Sh. Surjan singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh that they have sold the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) and answering respondents are admitted as owners/bhumidar of the land allotted in lieu of the land comprising in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 (min) and answering respondents have every right, title and interest in the said land and the said Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh were left with no right, title or interest in the said land and consequently also in the land under acquisition. Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh have died and their successors in interest are making claims to the compensation contrary to the stand taken by Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh.
18. Reply also filed by IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7, namely, Sh.K.L. Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh.Raj Kumar Aggarwal to the claim of the claimants Sh.Devender Singh Yadav, Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav and Sh. Virender Singh Yadav. The IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have denied the averments made by claimants in their claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are entitled for the compensation referred to this court as the answering IPs are the genuine owner in respect of land purchased by them through registered sale deeds dated 24.12.1985. The present compensation has been referred to the court of the land which was allotted to LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 11/54 Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh.Surjan Singh, having half share each, of whose the claimants are the legal representatives in lieu of preconsolidation land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 total measuring 5 bighas 05 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka. After sale of the aforesaid land vide above sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 Sh. Raghbir Singh, father of the claimants and Sh. Surjan Singh have left with no right, title or interest qua the land sold by them to the answering IPs. The registered sale deeds have not been disputed or challenged or sought declaration being null and void in any court of law since the date of knowledge till date and thus the sale deeds being genuine and authentic cannot be qustioned in any manner by the claimants herein. The compensation referred by the LAC to the court in respect of the land which was allotted in the name of Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh including the land sold by them to the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and thus the compensation if any is liable to be awarded in the name of IP Nos. 5,6 and 7 of the land acquired.
19. It is stated that the claim is an abuse of the process of law and just because of the reason the mutation, if any, was not recorded in the revenue record do not make the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 disentitle from claiming the compensation of the land which was allotted in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9. It is stated that for the sake of brevity the claim of the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 may also be read as part of the claim under reply.
20. It is further stated that the repartitioned land baring Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 was further considered and LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 12/54 Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh were again allotted subject land of which the compensation has been referred to this Court and thus excluding the land purchased by the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 vide aforesaid sale deeds, the sellters Sh.Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh cannot derive any benefit/ fruits of the land which has already been sold by them and the compensation is liable to be paid to the IP Nos. 5,6 and 7 to the extent of the land purchased by them from the land of Sh.raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh.
21. It is stated that because the name of the purchaser/IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was not recorded in the revenue record for technical purposes and the mutation cannot be recorded in revenue record which is required for fiscal purposes and the sanctions of the mutation do not confer any bhumidari, ownership, right, title or interest either in favour of seller or in favour of the purchaser in the event of any sale as mutation is merely a formal requirement for updating the revenue record periodically from time to time. The non- sanction of mutation in favour of the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for technical reasons or otherwise do not disentitle the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for payment of compensation and do not make entitle the seller to take any advantage or benefit from the land already sold by seller and left with no right title or interest therein. It is stated that the claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed and compensation be awarded and pay to the answering IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
22. IP No. 5, 6 and 7, namely, Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal also filed claim. It is stated that the IP LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 13/54 Nos. 5, 6 & 7 had purchased the land comprising of 1 bigha 15 biswas each in Killa No. 67/2 and 67/9 in village Mundka vide duly registered sale deed dated 24.12.1985 bearing no. 10905, 10907, 10909. The claimants have purchased the land from the then recorded owner Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh. The said land was purchased with the prior permission of the consolidation officer of village Mundka. The said land purchased by the claimants vide amended consolidation scheme of village Mundka as per consolidation officer order dated 15.06.1988. as per the said scheme the land mentioned in the revenue record in the name of the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh included in extended firni/lal dora by the concerned department vide order dated 15.06.1988 and in lieu of that land only name of the then record owner mentioned in the revenue record but actually the present Ips/claimants were the actual owner of the land because the recorded owner sold out his land to the present claim.
23. It is stated that as per the amended draft scheme of consolidation and as per the order dated 24.07.1989 the above mentioned land of the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh was included in the extended abadi and the Khasra numbers 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 3/1, 4/1/1, 6/22/2, 23/3, 12/15, 131/14/2, 17, 18, 131/15, 16, 17, 1031, 1034, 21/12 min were allotted to the then recorded owner in lieu of the land which include in the extended abadi of village Mundka. It is stated that the present IPs purchased the land with a consideration amount and the original recorded owner of the land were allotted other alternative land and new Khasra number was allotted to the then recorded owner.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 14/54
24. It is stated that the present claimants filed objections against the said order of C.O. (C) before the Financial Commissioner, which has been adjourned sine die due to pending decision of related matter in the High Court of Delhi in the form of CWP No. 348/93. The claimants also filed writ petition bearing no. 5815/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court. The writ petition of Shri Surjan Singh & Ors. Vs. Finance Commissioner & Ors was dismissed on 2 nd July 2007 but the matter of the present claimants attached with the said writ petition was remanded back to Financial Commissioner with a direction to decide the case No. 145/2000 of the petitioner, which is pending before the Financial Commissioner. The IPs/ claimants also filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing no. 2645/99 against Sh.Surjan Singh and others before the Hon'ble High Court, which was remanded back in the court of ADJ and same was adjourned sine die with liberty to the plaintiff to apply for revival.
25. It is stated that the land had been acquired by Government which was allotted to the then recorded owner. The payment is pending before the court in respect of allotted Khasra numbers. As per record the said Khasra number and land belongs to some other persons, previous recorded owner of the land but the actual owner of the above mentioned land are th present claimants because they purchased the land with a consideration amount from the then recorded owner. Since the dispute has arisen about the amendment in the consolidation scheme and extension of phirni/lal dora, the name of the present claimants were not included/mutated in the Revenue records, however, they have become the LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 15/54 owners/bhumidhars by virtue of the sale deed. The present recorded owners are not entitled for the compensation of the land under acquisition because they sold out their land to the present IPs/claimants and after that they have no right, title or interest in th acquired land. Present claimants seek that compensation may kindly be released in their favour as per share in the above mentioned land.
26. LRs of IP No. 1, namely, Sh. Siri Krishan, Sh.Jeet Singh, Sh. Abhimanyu and Sh. Ravinder filed reply to the claim of IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7. In the reply they denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the alleged claimants are neither the bhumidhars nor in possession of the aforesaid land. The claimants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the acquired land and the IP No. 1 and his sons are entitled to receive the entire compensation to the extent of ½ share of the acquired land being the bhumidhar in possession of the same. It is stated that as per the own admission of the disputants, the land was allotted during the consolidation proceedings in the year 1988 and the IP No. 1 and his sons were in the actual physical possession till the date of acquisition. The LAC took the possession of the land from the IP No. 1. No other person except the answering IPs had any right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6/22/2, 6/23/3, 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 19/3/1/1, 19/4/1/1, 21//12/2 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the alleged sale deed, if any, is null and void, unenforceable and no sanctity in the eyes of law. The land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Land Revenue Act and the Consolidation Act.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 16/54
27. It is stated that the name of the alleged disputants were never recorded in the revenue/consolidation record. It is further stated that the land of the answering IPs was taken by the Consolidation Officer for extension of abadi. The Consolidation Officer allotted different Khasra Nos. in re- partition to the answering IPs. It is stated that as per own admission of th alleged claimants the consolidation Officer's order is dated 15.06.1988 and they alleged to have sale deed of 1985, then how their names were not recorded in the record. The revenue department and the Consolidation department never accepted/admitted the alleged claimants/disputants as owner/bhumidhar of the said land. It is stated that order dated 24.07.1989 is crystal clear that the Consolidation Officer considered and found that the representations of the alleged claimants/disputants has no merits and rejected their representation. They challenged the same before Financial Commissioner and Hon'ble High court and same was rejected. Hence, the order of the Consolidation Officer has attained finality. It is stated that claim of the alleged claimants/disputants may kindly be rejected.
28. IP Nos.2 to 4, namely, Sh. Devender Singh Yadav, Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav and Sh. Virender Singh Yadav filed reply to the claim of IP Nos. 5, 6 and
7. In the reply they denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the alleged claimants are neither the bhumidhars nor in possession of the aforesaid land. The claimants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the acquired land and the IP Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 17/54 receive the entire compensation to the extent of ½ share of the acquired land being the bhumidhar in possession of the same. It is stated that as per the own admission of the disputants, the land was allotted during the consolidation proceedings in the year 1988 and the IP Nos. 2 to 4 were in the actual physical possession till the date of acquisition. The LAC took the possession of the land from the IP Nos. 2 to 4. No other person except the answering IPs had any right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6/22/2, 6/23/3, 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 19/3/1/1, 19/4/1/1, 21//12/2 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the alleged sale deed, if any, is null and void, unenforceable and no sanctity in the eyes of law. The land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Land Revenue Act and the Consolidation Act.
29. It is stated that the name of the alleged disputants were never recorded in the revenue/consolidation record. It is further stated that the land of the answering IPs was taken by the Consolidation Officer for extension of abadi. The Consolidation Officer allotted different Khasra Nos. in re- partition to the answering IPs. It is stated that as per own admission of th alleged claimants the consolidation Officer's order is dated 15.06.1988 and they alleged to have sale deed of 1985, then how their names were not recorded in the record. The revenue department and the Consolidation department never accepted/admitted the alleged claimants/disputants as owner/bhumidhar of the said land. It is stated that order dated 24.07.1989 is crystal clear that the Consolidation Officer considered and found that the representations of the alleged claimants/disputants has no LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 18/54 merits and rejected their representation. They challenged the same before Financial Commissioner and Hon'ble High court and same was rejected. Hence, the order of the Consolidation Officer has attained finality. It is stated that claim of the alleged claimants/disputants may kindly be rejected.
30. IP Nos. 8 to 11, namely, Smt. Veena Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, Smt. Sushila Goel and Sh.Brij Mohan Goel filed their claim. It is stated that the claimants/ IPs had purchased the land comprising 2 bigha 1 biswa each in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 min in Village Mundka vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.1985 bearing registration no. 10906, 10908, 10910, from the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh. Necessary permission obtained by the vendor and vendee in respect of the above mentioned land vide NOC No. 15417-18 dated 05.12.1985 and 573075 dated 02.12.1985. The entry of the same also exists in the sale deed. The land was purchased with the prior permission of the Consolidation Officer of Village Mundka, Delhi. The said land was purchased by the claimants as per the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.06.1988 and as per amended consolidation scheme. The mentioned in the revenue record in the name of the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh included in extended phirni/ Lal dora by the concerned department vide order dated 15.06.1988 but the actuallly the present IPs/ claimants were the actual owner of the land because the recorded owner sold out his land to the present claimants.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 19/54
31. It is stated that as per the amended draft scheme of consolidation and as pr the order dated 24.07.1989 the above mentioned land of the then recorded owner Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh was included in the extended abadi and the Khasra Nos. 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 3/1, 4/1/1, 6/22/2, 23/3, 12/15, 131/14/2, 17, 18, 131/15, 16, 17, 1031, 1034, 21/2 min was allotted to the then recorded owner in lieu of the land which is included in the extended abadi of Village Mundka. The present IPs purchased the land with a consideration amount and the original recorded owner of the land were allotted other alternative land and new Khasra number was allotted to the then recorded owner. It is stated that against the order of Consolidation Officer, the present claimants filed Revision petition before Financial Commissioner and against the order of F.C. filed Writ Petition No. 348/93, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
32. It is stated that since the dispute has arisen about the amendment in the consolidation scheme and extension of firny/ Lal Dora the name of the present claimants were not allotted/mutated in the Revenue Records, however, they have become the owners/ bhumidhars by virtue of the sale deed. Claimants seek that compensation of the land be released to them as per their shares.
33. LRs of IP No. 1, namely, Sh. Siri Krishan, Sh.Jeet Singh, Sh. Abhimanyu and Sh. Ravinder filed reply to the claim of IP Nos. 8 to 11. In the reply they denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the alleged claimants are neither LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 20/54 the bhumidhars nor in possession of the aforesaid land. The claimants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the acquired land and the IP No. 1 and his sons are entitled to receive the entire compensation to the extent of ½ share of the acquired land being the bhumidhar in possession of the same. It is stated that as per the own admission of the disputants, the land was allotted during the consolidation proceedings in the year 1988 and the IP No. 1 and his sons were in the actual physical possession till the date of acquisition. The LAC took the possession of the land from the IP No. 1. No other person except the answering IPs had any right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6/22/2, 6/23/3, 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 19/3/1/1, 19/4/1/1, 21//12/2 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the alleged sale deed, if any, is null and void, unenforceable and no sanctity in the eyes of law. The land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Land Revenue Act and the Consolidation Act.
34. It is stated that the name of the alleged disputants were never recorded in the revenue/consolidation record. It is further stated that the land of the answering IPs was taken by the Consolidation Officer for extension of abadi. The Consolidation Officer allotted different Khasra Nos. in re- partition to the answering IPs. It is stated that as per own admission of th alleged claimants the consolidation Officer's order is dated 15.06.1988 and they alleged to have sale deed of 1985, then how their names were not recorded in the record. The revenue department and the Consolidation department never accepted/admitted the alleged claimants/disputants as owner/bhumidhar of the said land. It LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 21/54 is stated that order dated 24.07.1989 is crystal clear that the Consolidation Officer considered and found that the representations of the alleged claimants/disputants has no merits and rejected their representation. They challenged the same before Financial Commissioner and Hon'ble High court and same was rejected. Hence, the order of the Consolidation Officer has attained finality. It is stated that claim of the alleged claimants/disputants may kindly be rejected.
35. IP Nos.2 to 4, namely, Sh. Devender Singh Yadav, Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav and Sh. Virender Singh Yadav filed reply to the claim of IP Nos. 8 to 11. In the reply they denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the alleged claimants are neither the bhumidhars nor in possession of the aforesaid land. The claimants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the acquired land and the IP Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to receive the entire compensation to the extent of ½ share of the acquired land being the bhumidhar in possession of the same. It is stated that as per the own admission of the disputants, the land was allotted during the consolidation proceedings in the year 1988 and the IP Nos. 2 to 4 were in the actual physical possession till the date of acquisition. The LAC took the possession of the land from the IP Nos. 2 to 4. No other person except the answering IPs had any right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6/22/2, 6/23/3, 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 19/3/1/1, 19/4/1/1, 21//12/2 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the alleged sale deed, if any, is null and void, unenforceable and no sanctity in the eyes of law. The land is governed by the LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 22/54 provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Land Revenue Act and the Consolidation Act.
36. It is stated that the name of the alleged disputants were never recorded in the revenue/consolidation record. It is further stated that the land of the answering IPs was taken by the Consolidation Officer for extension of abadi. The Consolidation Officer allotted different Khasra Nos. in re- partition to the answering IPs. It is stated that as per own admission of th alleged claimants the consolidation Officer's order is dated 15.06.1988 and they alleged to have sale deed of 1985, then how their names were not recorded in the record. The revenue department and the Consolidation department never accepted/admitted the alleged claimants/disputants as owner/bhumidhar of the said land. It is stated that order dated 24.07.1989 is crystal clear that the Consolidation Officer considered and found that the representations of the alleged claimants/disputants has no merits and rejected their representation. They challenged the same before Financial Commissioner and Hon'ble High court and same was rejected. Hence, the order of the Consolidation Officer has attained finality. It is stated that claim of the alleged claimants/disputants may kindly be rejected.
37. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 07.01.2010:
1. Which of the IP is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent?
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 23/54
2. Relief.
38. IP Nos. 1 to 4 in support of their claim got examined IP 1to4W1 Sh. Devinder Singh Yadav; IP 1to4W2 Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari from the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh; IP 1to4W3 Sh. Manjit Singh, Office Kanoongo, District West, Rampura and IP 1to4W4 Sh. Devi Ram, Office Kanoongo from the office of SDM, Mehrauli. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh. Devender Singh, IP No.1, evidence on behalf of IP No. 1 to 4 was closed.
39. IP Nos. 5 to 7 in support of their claim got examined O5W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal and IP5-7W-2 Sh.Ghanshyam, LDC from the Record Room (Sessions), Tis Hazari, Delhi. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh. R.S. Rana, Advocate, evidence on behalf of IP Nos. 5 to 7 was closed on 28.11.2015.
40. In support of their claim, IP No. 8 to 11 got examined IPW8-11 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh. R.S. Rana, Advocate, evidence on behalf of IP Nos. 8 to 11 was closed on 27.02.2016.
41. It is pertinent to mention that vide statements dated 03.06.2009, Smt. Beermati wife of late Sh. Raghubir Singh and Smt. Meena Devi daughter of late Sh.Raghubir Singh relinquished their rights/shares in favour of four sons of late Sh. Raghubir Singh, namely, Sh. Jeet Singh, Sh. Sri Krishan, Sh. Abhimanyu and Sh. Ravinder.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 24/54
42. I have heard Sh. Devender Verma, Counsel for IP Nos. 1 to 4 and Sh.R.S. Rana, Counsel for the IP Nos. 5 to 11 and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
43. Before deciding the issue, let us first discuss the evidence led by the parties.
44. IP 1 to 4W1 Sh. Devinder Singh Yadav tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IPW-2/A, in which he almost reiterated the averments made in the claim. In his cross- examination he deposed that Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 was in the ownership of his father before the consolidation proceedings took place in village Mundka. He cannot say about the three sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 executed by his father late Sh. Surjan Singh Yadav in respect of Khasra Nos. 67/2 and 67/9 in favour of Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal. He volunteered that as he has not informed them in this regard. He gave similar answer with regard to three sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 executed in favour of Smt. Vina Goel and Sh. Raj Kumar Goel and Smt. Sushila Goel and Brij Bhushan Goel jointly and third sale deed in favour of Smt.Kalawati with regard to Khasra No. 67/9 min and 67/10 min respectively total measuring 5 Bighas 2 Biswas situated in village Mundka. His father expired on 10.06.2004. He came to know regarding the present dispute when they went to received the compensation from the LAC where objections were filed by third party and they came to knowledge of the present dispute. The advocate never informed them regarding the said sale deeds. Regarding the sale deeds, he LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 25/54 come to know during the course of the present proceedings, exact date, month and year he cannot tell. He deposed that yes he know that above said persons are claiming compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds. It came to his knowledge that for the last 3-4 years the aforesaid persons are claiming compensation in respect of subject land of the case in lieu of previous land purchased by the aforesaid persons. He has no knowledge that during the consolidation proceedings the old Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 were came within the extended Lal Dora of the village. He admitted that he is claiming compensation for the land which was allotted in lieu of old Khasras and have new numbers part of has been acquired and subject matter of the present dispute. He has not filed any complaint with the police regarding the allegations of forged sale deeds of IP Nos. 5 to 11. He has written in the affidavits because these sale deeds were not executed in his presence. He did not have any documents for taking over the possession of the new khasras and part of which subject matter of present dispute during consolidation proceedings. He has no knowledge whether DMRC had not taken possession of the acquired land in dispute from him. He denied the suggestion that LAC did not take possession of the acquired land from him. He has not filed any case regarding allotment of new Khasra number during consolidation proceedings. He denied the suggestion that during consolidation proceedings, his father was not willing to accept allotment of new khasras in lieu of old khasras. He denied that he is not entitled for compensation of the acquired land. He has not filed any document to show that he has been cultivating acquired land in dispute.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 26/54
45. IP1 to 4W2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari village Mundka deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni Paimaish of the year 1997-98 onward and khatoni of the year 2005-06 onward, copies of the same are Ex. IP1 to 4W2/A (colly) and Ex. IP1 to 4 W2/B (colly). In his cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the above said exhibited documents.
46. IP1 to 4W3 Sh. Manjit Singh, Office Kanoongo deposed that he has proved the Khasra Girdawari for the year 2000-01 as Ex. IP1to4W3/A (colly), Khasra Girdawari for the year 2001-02 as Ex. IP1 to 4 W3/B (colly), Khasra Girdawari for the year 2002-03 as Ex. IP1 to 4 W3/C (colly), Khasra Girdawari for the year 2003-04 as Ex. IP1 to 4 W3/D (colly) and Khasra Girdawari for the year 2004-05 as Ex. IP1 to 4 W3/E (colly). In cross-examination, he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the above said exhibited documents.
47. IP1to4W4 Sh. Devi Ram, Office Kanoongo deposed that he has partly brought the original summoned record i.e. Khasra Girdawari for the year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 for the land bearing Khasra no. 66//2, 67//9, 67//10 of village Mundka, Delhi. The photocopy of khasra girdawari for the year 1983-84 is Ex. IP1to4W4/1 (colly), for the year 1984-85 is Ex. IP1to4W4/2, for the year 1985-86 is Ex. IP1to4W4/3 (colly), for the year 1986-87 is Ex. IP1to4W4/4 (colly) and for the year 1987-88 is Ex. IP1to4W4/5 (colly). In the cross-examination, he deposed that he is graduate. He has also done the diploma of Patwari course. He does not know Urdu language. He has brought the original registers on which the village Mundka is mentioned. He does LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 27/54 not know whatever mentioned in the above said exhibited documents in Urdu language.
48. IP Nos. 5 to 7 got examined, O5W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. O5W1/A, in which he reiterated the averments made in their claim and proved on record SPA executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, IP No.6 and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, IP No.7 as Ex. O5W1/1 and Ex. O5W1/2 respectively; order dated 30.04.2009 is Ex. O5W1/3. In the cross-examination he deposed that he purchased the land bearing Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 measuring 1 Bigha 15 Biswas. He purchased the said land from Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir singh on 24.12.1985. He admitted that he has not purchased any land prior or after the purchase of above said land. He purchased the subject land for Rs.30,000/- by way of Demand Draft. Prior to purchase of the subject land he has assured himself and inspected the revenue record in respect of the ownership and possession of the seller. He was not aware regarding the consolidation proceedings nor he came to know regarding the same while inspecting the revenue record. He obtained the permission from the consolidation officer prior to the purchase of land in question. He has not filed in the court. He volunteered that he had filed at the time of registration of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar Office. He did not produce the same after registration of the sale deed before the Consolidation Officer/ Tehsildar. He had purchased the land in question for agriculture purpose. No separate document prepared for handing over the land in question with the owner of land in question.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 28/54
49. O5W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination further deposed that after purchasing the land and taking over the possession, he left the one person as care taker because he is resident of Calcutta. He has no knowledge about the preparation of Khasra Girdawari by the Patwari at about every six months fro recording of crops and possession. He did not know the formalities of purchasing the agriculture land in Delhi therefore, he cannot say about mutation of land in question in his name with revenue authorities. He had filed an application for mutation in the year 2005 with the revenue authorities.He himself filed the said application. Again said he did not remember the actual date, month and year of submission of said application. He did not follow and enquired whether the land in question mutated in his name or not. Sh. Balram and Sh. Kishan were care taker appointed by him. He had visited 5-7 times after purchasing the land till acquisition. He has submitted original documents such as insurance papers, telephone bill and purchase of machinery equipments to show his possession of land in question.
50. O5W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination further deposed that after the witness has seen the file and photocopies of telephone bill Ex. O5W1/X1 to X17 bearing the address of land in question Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 near village Mundka School, Ex. O5W1/X18 and Ex. O5W1/X19 are photocopies of insurance papers i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited Ex. O5W1/X20 is the photocopy of receipt Madan Watch and Company and photocopy of the photographs are Ex. O5W1/X21 to X24. He had constructed a room at the land in question where LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 29/54 telephone connection was installed. He did not take permission from Tehsildar for construction of the said room. This fact was not entered in revenue record. He came to know in the year 1989 about change of the subject land and allotment of new Khasra number to Sh.Raghubir Singh and Sh.Surjan Singh in lieu of land in question. He had filed revision petition before revenue authority in the year 1989. He did not file any separate application. No order passed in revision petition for allotment of land. He volunteered that the revision petition was adjourned sine-die and same is pending as adjourned sine-die. He had challenged consolidation order in the revision petition. He did not challenge the names of Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh appeared after consolidation against new khasra numbers. He did not know about the allotment of land vide new khasra number by the consolidation officer in the name of sh. Surjan singh and Sh. Raghubir singh. He volunteered that he challenged the whole proceedings and orders of consolidation officer. He knew the allotment of Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh. He admitted that he had filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High court against the allotment and the same was dismissed. He volunteered that he did nto approach Hon'ble High court to challenge the allotment because revision petition was adjourned sine-die. The writ petition was dismissed in the year 2007. He did not revieve his revision petition adjourned sine-die before revenue authorities.
51. O5W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination further deposed that he had filed a civil suit bearing no. 2645/1999 against Sh. Surjan Singh, Sh. Raghubir LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 30/54 Singh and Sh. Atma Ram as they were disturbing his possession. The same is adjourned sine-die by Hon'ble High Court. He did not file any other case except Hon'ble High Court Writ Petition and Revision Petition. He had filed the civil suit regarding Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 in the year 2000. He has not filed copy of plaint. He admitted his signatures and signatures of Sh. Vinod Aggarwal on Ex. O5W1/X25. He has filed claim before this court for grant of compensation in regard to khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9. This claim is also on behalf of Sh. Vinod Aggarwal and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, both are his sons. He is not agreed to receive compensation of 5 Bigha 15 Biswas allotted in lieu of old Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9, village Mundka, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he has not purchased the land in question from Sh. Surjan singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh. He denied that Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh had not executed the sale deed in his favour in respect of the land in question. He denied the sugestion that he never remain in possession of the land in question. He denied that he intentionally did not file sale deed before consolidation Officer/Tehsildar for mutation as there was bar under Section 33 of Land Reforms Act.
52. IP5-7W-2 Sh. Ghanshyam, LDC from Record Room (Sessions) deposed that he has brought the summoned record in suit no. 192/03 titled 'Krishan Lal Aggarwal vs. Atma ram' bearing Goshwara No. 904-D decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Ld. ADJ on 26.04.2005 and proved on record three sale deeds all dated 24.12.1985 executed by Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghubir Singh, both sons of Sh. Deep Chand in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal and LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 31/54 Sh.Vinod Kumar Aggarwal respectively and the same are correct as per the record brought by him and are exhibited as Ex. IP5-7W-2/1, Ex. IP5-7W-2/2 and Ex. IP5-7W-2/3 respectively. This witness has not been cross-examined.
53. IP Nos. 8 to 11 got examined Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel as IPW8-11W1, who is Special Power of Attorney of IP No. 8/11 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. IPW8-11/A. He proved on record SPA dated 13.11.2013 as ex. Ex. IPW8- 11W1/1 to Ex. IPW8-11W1/4; claim of the objector as Ex. IPW8-11W1/5; certified copies of the sale deeds as Ex. IPW8- 11W1/6 to 8; death certificate of Smt. Kalawati as Ex. IPW8- 11W1/9; certified copy of revision petition 252/89 of FC as Ex. IPW8-11W1/10; certified copy of order dated 19.03.1990 of FC in case no. 252/89 as Ex. IPW8-11W1/11; certified copy of the order dated 24.07.1989 of CO is Ex. IPW8-11W1/12; certified copy of order dated 31.10.1989 of FC is Ex. IPW8- 11W1/13.
54. IPW8-11W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel in his cross- examination deposed that he has been authorized by Smt.Vina Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel and Smt. Sushila Goel. The Attorneys were prepared in Tis Hazari Courts. He admitted that Smt. Vina Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel and Smt. Sushila goel signed the attorneys at his residence i.e. A2/240, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. After getting the signatures on the documents, he got them notarized on the next. When he got the documents notarized at Tis Hazari, he was accompanied by his Advocate Sh. S.S. Vats and Mr. Raghubir Singh and his brother Sh. Raj Kumar were there and nobody else except the above said person LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 32/54 were present there. Signatures at point Y on Ex. IP8-11W1/4 as a witness is of his son. He admitted that there is only one witness to the said four exhibits. The witness signed the document at Tis Hazari. He did not remember the exact date. Again said, when the documents were typed on the same day he signed it.
55. IPW8-11W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel in his cross- examination deposed that on the day when the document was notarized Smt. Sushila Goel, smt. Vina Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel and Sh.Brij Bhushan Goel were not in the Tis Hazari Courts. He signed at point Z at Tis Hazari Court. He signed at point Z when the documents were prepared at Tis Hazari Court. Smt.Sushila Devi is his wife. Smt. Vina Goel is his Bhabi and Sh. Raj Kumar Goel is his brother. Smt. Vina Goel and Sh. Raj Kumar purchased the land of Khasra no. 67/10 measuring 2 bighas of village Mundka on 24.12.1985 and they were residing at A-2/240, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The said land was purchased for Rs.30,000/- by draft. They obtained the possession of the said land on the spot prior to the execution of the sale deed and they got the same barbed wires on four sites. On sought side main highway, north side there were agricultural land, on east side agricultural land, on west side agricultural land. Smt. Sushila and Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel also purchased 2 bighas land on the same day in Khasra No. 67/9 and mother also purchased land on the same day in Khasra no. 67/9 and 67/10 measuring 1 Bigha 1 Biswa for agricultural purposes. He was not aware of the fact that in the village at that time consolidation proceedings were going on. He came to know about the consolidation proceedings in the year 1989. He took the NOC for purchase of agricultural LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 33/54 land. He did not know the rank of the officer who granted NOC but whose name was Shyam Sunder. He had appeared before concerned officer in the year 1989. He did not appear prior to this year. I did not approach the Tehsildar for mutation in the revenue record as per the sale deed. He did not know legal proceedings therefore, he did not take any steps for getting his name recorded in the consolidation record. He did not take any steps to get his name recorded in the Khasra Girdawari. He has no knowledge whether the Consolidation Officer or Tehsildar was informed about death of late Smt. Kalawati. She was his mother. He did not take any steps after death of his mother regarding her purchased land. He or his any other family member who has purchased the land in question never appeared before the Consolidation Officer because they had not knowledge of consolidation procedure.
56. IPW8-11W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel in his cross- examination further deposed that he know all the contents of the affidavit Ex. IPW8-11/A. He came to know later the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 24.07.1989. He come to know after about 6 months/ one year. He had challenged this order before Financial Commissioner. He did not remember the date and year for approaching the FC. He admitted that he had approached the High Court against the order of FC. He did not remember whether he had filed order of High Court before this court or not. The matter was remanded back in his absence. They had filed 2-3 cases in the court of FC. He did not remember they had approached to High Court in one case or 2-3 cases. He did not know whether Consolidation Officer exchange the land and the LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 34/54 alleged purchased land of theirs was declared as the abadi plots and other agricultural land was allotted to the Bhumidhar. Sh. Raghubir Singh, IP No. 5 told him about the new change in khasra mentioned in para no.5 of his affidavit. Sh. Raghubir Singh told him that fact in the year 1989. They did not take any steps to get change their khasra numbers before Consolidation Officer. He volunteered that they were in the possession of purchased khasra numbers. They never in possession of new khasra numbers. The present dispute regarding the double allotment of land.
57. IPW8-11W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel in his cross- examination further deposed that the dispute in the present case is regarding khasra no. 67/9. He denied the suggestion that present case is not pertaining to khasra no.67/9. Sh. Kishan Lal is brother-in-law of his elder brother Sh. Madan Lal. He did not know what is permission U/s 30 East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Fragmentation) Act 1948. He has no knowledge whether he had filed about the said permission on record or not. He has no knowledge whether he had filed about the said permission on record or not. He did not take permission for raising construction on the purchased land as stated in para no.9 of his affidavit. He also not got entered in Khasra Girdawari. He did not get the entry in Khasra Girdawari twice a year regarding his possession. He did not know whether in the year 1989 copy of Khatoni and khasra Girdawari and consolidation report taken by them or not. He volunteered that his Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder Vats was taken care of all these cases. He died about 10-12 years ago. Thereafter, his brother and munsi were looked after these cases. He personally never obtained about said document.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 35/54 He has also not taken Khatoni, Khasra Girdawari and consolidation report of new khasra numbers. He has approached this court for cancellation of compensation awarded in this case. He has approached this court for cancellation of double allotted khasras. He denied that he is not legally appointed attorney. He admitted that he is deposing on behalf of IP Nos. 8 to 11.
58. I have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of IP No. 1 to 4. Ld. Counsel Sh. Devender Verma, submitted that IP No. 1 to 4 are the Bhumidar in possession of acquired land in possession comprising in Khasra No. 6//22/2 (1-15), 6//23/3 (1-15), 6//24/3 (1-11), 19//3/1 (1-1), 19//4/1/1 (0-18), 22//12/2 ( 1-4), and 19//2/1 ( 1-1) which was acquired vide Award No. 3/DCW/05-06, Village Mundka on 21.03.2003. No person except IP No. 1 to 4 have any right, title and interest whatsoever in the compensation assessed by the LAC. Therefore, IP No.1 to 4 being legally, lawfully entitled person to claim the same.
59. Sh. Devender Verma, further submitted that objector No. 5 to 7 led the evidence of Kishan Lal O5W1 tendered his evidence and cross-examined on 28.11.2015. He claim to be the purchaser vide Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 pertaining to land measuring 1-15 bigha each in Kila No. 67/1 and 67/9 total measuring 5 bigha 5 biswa. Objector IP No. 8 to 11 also led the evidence. On 27.02.2016 Vijay Kumar Goel was examined and cross-examined. In the cross-examination he categorically deposed that " We never in possession of new khasra nos". The claim is on the basis of Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 with regard to land measuring 5 Bigha 2 LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 36/54 Biswa, Kila No. 67/9 and 67/10 and the land were purchased by the objectors for agricultural purposes. There is another Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 in the name of Veena Goel and Raj Kumar Goel jointly for Khasra No. 67/9, 67/10 (2-01). Another Sale Deed in the name of Smt. Sushila Goel and Brij Bhushan Goel for Khasra No. 67/9 (2-0) and lastly another sale deed in the name of Smt. Kalawati Goel for Khasra No. 67/10(1-1).
60. Sh. Devender Verma, ld. Counsel for IP No. 1 to 4 further submitted that IP No. 5 to 11 have miserably failed to prove and produce any documents regarding the acquired land to show their possession. There is no Khasra Girdawarsi prepared by Revenue Department showing their names. There is no order of Revenue Department or Consolidation Officer as per law. He further submitted that the alleged Sale Deeds are in contravention of Section 33 of Delhi Reform Act due to which they never approached to the Tehsildar/Revenue Assistant for mutation of alleged land in their favour. Now IP No. 5 to 11 are taking benefit of their own wrong and an order passed by ADM on 28.06.1988.
61. Sh. Devender Verma, further submitted that Consolidation proceedings were going on in Village on 24.12.1985 when alleged Sale Deeds were executed which is null and void as per provision of East Punjab Holdings ( Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as fragmentation is prohibited. He referred Section 8 and Section 9 of this Act.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 37/54
62. Sh. Devender Verma, further submitted that IP No. 5 to 11 stated that they have obtained permission under Section 30 A from the consolidation officer but no copy has been placed on record nor summoned on record. Section 30- 30A do not allow the consolidation officer to give any permission for execution of the Sale Deed but only talks about the right of occupancy only with regard to land owner or tenant. He further submitted that lawfully the alleged Sale Deeds of IP No. 5 to 11 are void as per Section 45 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Section 9 of East Punjab Holdings ( Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 so they have no right whatsoever on the basis of alleged Sale Deeds. Accordingly to order dated 24.07.1989 the Consolidation officer at Sl. No. 49 withdrawn part of land from Khata of IP No. 1 to 4 and allotted land at other centre. Yet leaving deficiency in the Khata of IP No. 1 to 4. Now IP No. 5 to 11 trying to create confusion and did not pursue their case No. 201/2007 which was pending before filing the Financial Commissioner and ultimately they had withdrawn the same on 30.04.2009 on the wrong submissions that land has been acquired. This court has no jurisdiction to decide the consolidation matter. The Khasra Nos are proved by Khasra Girdawari alongwith possession from 1983 to 1988 on the basis of Ex. IP1 to 4W4/1 to Ex. IP1to4W4/5 and from year 2000 to 2005 as Ex. IP 1 to 4W3/4 to E. Similarly Khatoni for 1997-98 as Ex. IP1to4W2/A ( Colly) and Khatoni year 2005-06 as Ex. IP1to 4 W2/B ( Colly). He further submitted that IP No. 1 to 4 are Bhumidar and were in possession of the acquired land in disputed, therefore, entitled for entire compensation.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 38/54
63. Sh. R.S. Rana, counsel for IP No. 5 to 11 also filed written arguments. I have gone through the same alongwith judgments.
64. Sh. R.S. Rana, ld. Counsel for IP No. 5 to 11submitted that Consolidation proceedings in Village Mundka commenced in the year 1975 under the provision of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and a scheme was framed on 26.07.1976. The Repartition proceedings under Section 21( 1) of East Punjab Holdings ( Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 were announced and fresh allotment were made to the right holders in lieu of pre- consolidation holdings. The plots were allotted in the extended Lal Dora/phirni and whose land came within phirni became double of the existing land and who sought plots within phirni had to contribute double value of land for allotment of plots and land of those persons included in the phirni, the value of existing land thereon became double. Thus benefits of consolidation were given to the existing recorded right holders of holding by way of allotment of residential plots and allotment of agriculture land outside the extended phirni. On 29.11.1985 vide Resolution no. 326 dated 29.11.1985, agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 (3-12(, 67/9 (3-12) and 67/10/1 ( 1-14) alongwith other land measuring 28 Bighas 15 Biswas (standard area) and 24 Bighas 17 Biswas ( Sada Area) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi was alloted to Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh, Predecessor of IP No. 1 to 4.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 39/54
65. He further submitted that on 24.12.1985 Surjan Singh and Raghbir Singh out of the aforesaid land measuring Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 vide three registered Sale Deeds Ex. IP 5-7W2/1, 2 & 3 measuring 1 Bigha 15 Biswas each total measuring 5 Bighas 5 Biswas was sold to Sh. Krishan Lal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal on 24.12.1985 and there is no violation of Section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The title of the said land transferred in favour of IP No. 5 to 11 from predecessor of IP No. 1 to 4 with the physical possession thereof. Similarly Surjan Singh and Raghbir Singh out of Khasra No. 67/9 Min and 67/10 Min vide Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 Ex. IP8-11/W/6 measuring 2 Bighas 01 Biswas sold to Smt. Veena Goel and Raj Kumar Goel out of Khasra No. 67/9 and 67/10, Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 Ex. Ip8-11/W/7 land measuring 2 Bighas sold to Smt. Sushila Goel and Brij Bhushan Goesl and out of Khasra No. 67/9 Min and vide Sale Deed dated 24.12.1985 Ex. IP8- 11/W/8 LAND MEASURING 1 Bigha 1 Biswas was sold to Smt. Kalawati out of Khasra No. 67/10 Min situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka free from all sorts of encumbrances and title of the said land stands transferred in favour of Ip No. 8 to 11 from Sh. Surjan Singh and Raghbir Singh alongwith physical possession on the same day.
66. Sh. R.S. Rana, further submitted that IP No. 5 to 7 after purchase of the land of above said Khasra constructed pucca boundary wall with structure of saw mill and two room for office purpose and a telephone connection no. 5471398 was got installed. Copy of the telephone bills are Ex. O5W1/X1 to X17 and insurance papers Ex. O5W1/X18 to 19, receipt of Madan Watch & Co. Ex. O5W1/X20 to 24 in LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 40/54 connected case. The machinery has been installed after purchase of the land as per the insurance policy and photographs which are duly proved on record.
67. IP No. 8 to 11 after purchase of above said land also constructed pucca boundary wall, three rooms, two hand pumps and planted various tress and established their actual possession.
68. He further submitted that on 20.05.1988 Consolidation Scheme dated 26.07.1976 was amended and amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988 was framed and confirmed vide order dated 15.06.1988. The land of Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 included in the newly extended Lal Dora/phirni and the value of the land becomes double due to inclusion of the new extended Lal Dora as per the amended Consolidation Scheme. On 24.07.1989 an order Ex. IP8-11/W1/13 was passed by Consolidation officer of the said Khasra which were withdrawn from Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh, IP No. 1 to 4 and fresh land having double value of original allotment vide order dated 29.11.1985 was allotted in the manner as follows:-
6/22/02 (1-06), 6/23/03(1-06), 6/24/03(1-03), 12/15 (2-06) 19/2 (0-16) 19/3/1(0-16) 19/4/1/ (0-13) 21/12/1 (1-2) 131/14/2 (0-04) 131/17 (4-04) 131/18/1 (0-08) 133/11/1/ ( 0-12) LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 41/54 133/20/2 (0-12) 134/21/1 ( 0-5) 134/15 (5-13) 134/16 (4-12) 1031 (4-00) 1034 (7-04)
69. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that vide order dated 24.07.1989 (after withdrawal of aforesaid land from Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh) built up plot no. 1011 (8-2) was allotted to Sh. Krishan Kumar (S.No.46), Plot No. 1010 (6-04) to Sh. Om Prakash (S.No.05) and Plot No. 1009 (7-18) to Sh. Hari Kishan (S.No. 22) over the aforesaid land bearing Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 and on other parts of the land which land was included in the extended Lal Dora within Phirni, as per newly amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988/15.06.1988. It is further submitted that interim order dated 05.12.1999 in CS (OS) No. 2645/99 was confirmed by the Hon'ble High court vide order dated 06.12.2000 and thereafter vide order dated 13.03.2001, the said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court in FAO No. 89/2001. On 06.12.2000 IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 filed a civil suit No. 2645/1999 titled Kishan Lal Aggarwal & Ors. vs. Atma Ram, Surjan Singh and Raghbir Singh before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide ex-parte stay order dated 05.12.1999 Sh. Atma Ram, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh were restrained with directions not to dispossess the IP Nos. 5, 6 and 7 from the property bearing no. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 which land claimed to have been allotted to Sh.Atma Ram and others by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.12.1996 in the form of plot No. LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 42/54 1011 due to inclusion of aforesaid land of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 in the extended Phirni/extended Lal Dora due to amendment of consolidation Scheme vide order dated 20.05.1988 and confirmed vide order dated 15.06.1988. It is submitted that IP Nos. 1 to 4 filed Revision Petition No. 215/1989 against Amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988/15.06.1988 and order dated 24.07.1989 along with IP Nos. 8 to 11 and against order dated 31.10.1989 due to built up area of IP Nos. 5 to 11.
70. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that WP (C) No. 348/1993 of Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh was against inclusion of land bearing Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10/1 and other lands being built up Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10/1 over plot no. 1009, 1010 and 1011 allotted to Sh. Krishan Kumar initially and thereafter to Sh. Atma Ram and the issue of protection of possession of subject land was subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court in suit no. 2645/1999 titled as 'Kishan Lal Aggarwal & Ors. vs. Atma Ram (including Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh/IP Nos. 1 to 4) and further the possession was protected vide order dated 05.12.1999 and thereafter suit was adjourned sine-die vide order dated 26.04.2005 (Ex. IP2W2/29) in LAC No. 29-A/10. Thus during the period 05.12.1999 to 26.04.2005 interim stay continued till 26.04.2005 in suit No. 2645/1999 and physical possession of IP Nos. 5 to 7 was protected and IP Nos. 1 to 4 and vendors Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh were restrained not to dispossess the IP Nos. 5 to 7 from their land. It is further submitted that vide order dated 31.10.1989 Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition no. 215/1989 titled 'Surjan Singh & Ors. vs. Settlement Officer LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 43/54 (C)' along with revision petition no. 216/1989 titled 'Hari Singh & Ors. vs. Settlement Officer (C)' and the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 15.06.1988 was set aside vide order dated 31.10.1989.
71. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that on 19.03.1990 another Revision Petition No. 252/1989 was also filed by Sh. Surjan Singh along with Sh. Raghbir Singh/IP Nos. 1 to 4, Smt. Veena Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, Smt. Sushila Goel, Sh. Brij Mohan, Smt. Kalawati/IP Nos. 8 to 11. Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Sh. Surte, Sh. Jagay and Sh. Dharambir Singh for quashing the order dated 24.07.1989 by virtue of Killa Nos. 55/22, 55/23, 67/2, 67/9, 67/10/1 was withdrawn and referred para nos. 3 and 7 as well as ground VII of the said revision petition. In the said revision petition No. 252/1989 vide order dated 19.03.1990 made sine-die since another matter was already subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court with regard to amendment of the consolidation Scheme and since built up/constructed area has come within the Phirni extended under the extended Consolidation Scheme dated 15.06.1988. He referred para 3, 4 and 61 of the order dated 19.03.1990 in this regard.
72. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that vide order dated 29.10.1992, Financial Commissioner decided the revision petition no. 215/1989 and 216/1989 and accepted, approved and sanctioned the Amended Consolidation Scheme dated 15.06.1988 under Section 42 of the Act and also held that demand of Sh. Krishan Kumar cannot be included in the amended scheme. IP Nos. 5 to 7 filed Revision Petition No. 145/2000 against the order dated 26.12.1996 against LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 44/54 Sh.Atma Ram, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh/ IP Nos. 1 to 4 but the said revision petition was made sine-die vide order dated 27.07.2000 by the Financial Commissioner due to filing of WP (C) No. 348/1993. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.10.1992, Sh.Surjan Singh/IP Nos. 1 to 4 and others including IP Nos. 8 to 11 filed WP (C) No. 348/1993 which petition was dismissed on merits by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.07.2007. Thereafter, Revision petition No. 201/2007-CA (Old No. 145/2001) was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.2009 (Ex. O5W1/8) and dismissed the same as infructuous due to operation of law since the land has been acquired and further held that only the civil court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the Bhoomidari rights and right, title, interest in favour of eligible person. It is submitted that the aforesaid land allotted to IP Nos. 1 to 4 in lieu of the land allotted to them vide order dated 24.07.1989 (including land bearing Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10) was acquired vide award No. 03/DC(W)/2005-2006 dated 27.01.2006. Thereafter reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act was referred to this Court.
73. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that since the acquired land is in lieu of Khasra Nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 alloted vide order dated 24.07.1989 of which IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 are bonafide purchasers in actual physical possession of their said land and were not dispossessed therefrom till the land was acquired from the date of purchase and IP Nos. 1 to 4 had admitted the possession of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 in Revision Petition No. 215/1989 (Ex. IP8-11/W/1/13) and Revision petition no. 252/1989 (Ex. IP-8- LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 45/54 10/W/1/11) on the land bearing Khasra Nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 in lieu of which newly alloted land has been acquired and in the absence of dispossession of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 and not taking the possession of newly allotted land vide impugned acquisition which land is forming part of corresponding value of land of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. Since the title of land stands transferred in favour of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 and new allotment was got made, hence the compensation of acquired land cannot be given to IP Nos. 1 to
4. The present recorded owners, IP Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled for the compensation of the acquired land because they had already sold out their land to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 through legal, valid and bonafide sale deeds and after that they have left with no right, title or interest in the acquired land.
74. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that the witness IP No. 1 to 4 W1 sh. Devender Yadav in statement dated 19.03.2006 during cross-examination has denied "my father was not willing to accept allotment of new Khasras in lieu of old Khasras". This statement is contrary and contradictory to pleadings in Revision Petition No. 252/1989 (Ex. IP8- 11/W1/10) and order dated 31.10.1989 (Ex. IP8-11/W1/13).
75. Sh. R.S. Rana further relied on judgments, S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853; Meghmala and Ors. vs. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383; Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470; Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jaganath (Dead) LRs & Ors.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 46/54 AIR 1984 SC 853; C.B. Aggarwal vs. P. Krishna Kapoor, AIR 1995 Delhi 154; Swaran vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668; Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernades vs.Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370; Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Satyender Singh v. Gulab Sigh, 2012 (129) DRJ 128; Satyabadi Pradhan v. Dayanidhi Pradhan AIR 903 Orissa.
76. Finally, Sh. R.S. Rana submitted that since the possession of earlier land allotted vide order dated 24.08.1989 was never given to IP Nos. 1 to 4 due to aforesaid litigation and without surrendering the possession of the earlier land, the possession of newly alloted land i.e. subject compensation of land, cannot be taken by IP Nos. 1 to 4 and cannot be given by the Consolidation Officer and particularly when the subject land was under stay, the entries in favour of IP nos. 1 to 4 during consolidation proceedings, are totally vitiated and deserves no credence and therefore, the compensation of the newly allotted land cannot be given to them which allotment is to the equivalent value of the land earlier allotted to IP Nos. 1 to 4, which was sold by them to IP Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 11 and therefore, they cannot be benefited twice. The claim of IP Nos. 1 to 4 is liable to be dismissed.
77. I have gone through the written submissions, evidence of the parties and record. LAC (West) has referred the reference of the acquired land in dispute along with compensation to the tune of Rs.49,71,635/- in respect of Khasra numbers 6//22/2 (1-15), 6//23/3 (1-15), 6//24/3 (1-11), 19//3/1 (1-1), 19//4/1/1 (0-18), 21//12/2 (1-4), 19//2/1 (1-1), LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 47/54 against the name of Sh. Raghbir Singh S/o Sh. Deep Chand as half share and Sh. Devender Singh Yadav and Sh. Vijender Singh Yadav both sons of Sh. Surjan Singh as 1/6 share each in total land measuring 9 bigha 5 biswa at Sl No.227 to 230. According to the stand of IP Nos. 1 to 4, they are Bhumidars and in possession of the disputed acquired land. The testimony of IP2W1 Sh. Devender Singh Yadav already discussed in detail. He tendered his affidavit in evidence, however no document proved on record. In the detailed cross-examination IP2W1 admitted that Khasra nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 were in ownership of his father before consolidation proceedings. This statement is contrary to record because as per consolidation proceedings, they were alloted to Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghubir Singh. He denied the knowledge of execution of three sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 by his father and Shri Surjan Singh to the IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11.
78. Sh. Devender Verma, Ld. Counsel for the IP Nos. 1 to 4 heavily relied on documents Ex. IP1-4W2/A Khatoni Paimaish pertaining to year 1997-98 and for the year 2005-06 Ex. IP1-4W2/B. Further Khasra Girdawari for the year 2001-02 as Ex. IP1-4W3/A, for the year 2001-02 as Ex. IP1-4W3/B, for the year 2002-03 as Ex. IP1-4W3/C, for the year 2003-04 as Ex. IP1-4W3/D and for the year 2004-05 as Ex. IP1-4W3/E. The Khasra Girdawari pertaining to year 1983 to 88 as Ex. IP1-4W4/1 to 5 of Khasra Nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10. Ex. IP1- 4W4/1-5 are in Urdu language and no translation has been filed on record. These documents belong to several other Khatedars but specifically not marked the Khasra numbers and the name of IP Nos. 1 to 4. The revenue record showing LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 48/54 the name of Sh. Surjan Singh and LRs of Sh. Raghubir Singh and later on LRs of Sh. Surjan Singh because after the sale purchase of the land in favour of IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11, the mutation was not carried out. However, it is admitted by IP Nos. 1 to 4 that Sh. Raghubir Singh and Sh.Surjan Singh during their lifetime already sold the Khasra numbers 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 total land measuring 10 Bigha 07 Biswas and same utilized during the amended Consolidation Scheme. The fact also established on record that IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 in Khasra Nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 put the permanent boundary walls, planted trees, got installed telephone connection, machinery and saw mull also installed. The acquired land in dispute was allotted in lieu of already land purchased by IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 from predecessors of IP Nos. 1 to 4.
79. Predecessors of IP nos. 1 to 4, Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh at no point of time disputed or denied that they have sold the land of Khasra nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. The Consolidation Officer was well within the knowledge of this transaction. Further, the amended consolidation scheme came into effect whereby the acquired land of Khasra No. 67/2, 67/9, 67/10 min also become part to amended Consolidation Scheme of the acquired land in dispute was allotted as per procedure of including the extended Lal Dora after purchasing by IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. Therefore, in the light of these peculiar and special circumstances the revenue record of Khasra Girdawaries pertains to year 1983 to 1988 and from year 2001 to 2005 as mentioned above does not confer any legal right of ownership. Therefore, on the basis of the only LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 49/54 Khatonies, I do not find any merit in the claim of ownership of IP Nos. 1 to 4.
80. On the other hand O5W1 Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal appeared in the witness box and proved the sale deeds i.e. Ex.RW1/3 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh in favour of Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal in respect of piece of land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in Khasra No. 67/9, 67/2 min situated in the area of village Mundka, Delhi; Ex. RW1/4 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghbir Singh in favour of Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal son of Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal in respect of piece of land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in Khasra No. 67/9 min situated in the area of village Mundka, Delhi; Ex. RW1/5 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghbir Singh in favour of Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal son of Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal in respect of piece of land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in Khasra No. 67/2 situated in the area of village Mundka, Delhi.
81. Similarly, IPW8-11W1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel proved the sale deeds i.e. Ex. IP8-11W1/6 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghubir Singh on 24.12.1985 in favour of smt. Veena Goel wife of Shri Madan Lal Goel and Sh. Raj Kumar Goeal son of Sh. Ram Partap Goel in respect of piece of land measuring 2 bigha 1 biswa in Khasra no. 67/9 min, 67/10 min situated in the area of Village Mundka, Delhi; Ex. IP8-11W1/7 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghubir Singh on 24.12.1985 in favour of Smt. Sushila Goel wife of Shri Vijay Kumar and Sh. Brij Bhushan Goel son of Sh. Ram Partap Goel in respect of piece of land measuring 2 bigha in Khasra no. 67/9 min situated in the area of Village Mundka, LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 50/54 Delhi; Ex. IP8-11W1/8 executed by Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghubir Singh on 24.12.1985 in favour of Smt. Kalawati Goel wife of Shri Ram Partap Goel in respect of piece of land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa in Khasra no.67/10 min situated in the area of Village Mundka, Delhi. The total land purchased by the IP Nos. 5 to 7 and IP Nos. 8 to 11 by way of aforementioned six registered sale deeds is 10 Bighas 07 Biswas.
82. In the detailed cross-examination, it is specifically deposed by O5W1 Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal that permission was obtained from the Consolidation Officer prior to purchase of the land. However, no such permission brought on record. It is pertinent to mention here that since 1985 till the reference and leading of the evidence of the parties neither Sh. Krishan Kumar nor Sh. Surjan Singh nor their successors IP Nos. 1 to 4 filed any case or complaint or challenged the execution of above said sale deeds in favour of IP No. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. They also not approached to the Revenue authorities for cancellation of those sale deeds. Further, the IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 have proved that they are in continuous possession after purchase of the above said land pertaining to Khasra no. 67/2, 67/9, 67/10 min. O5W1 also proved the telephone bills Ex. O5W1/X1 to X17 bearing the address of land in question i.e. Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9, document of United India Insurance Company Limited as Ex. O5W1/X18 and X19 and also receipt of Madan Watch and Company as Ex. O5W1/20 and photographs as Ex. O5W1/X21 to 24.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 51/54
83. My attention has been drawn to the Section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 30, 30A of of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Punjab Act'). The contention of Ld. Counsel for the IP Nos. 1 to 4 in my considered opinion is devoid of any merit because as per record, it has been established that all the sale deeds were executed after allotment of Khasras to Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh by Consolidation Officer. The registration have taken place as Consolidation Authorities have acceded to. The law is well settled that mutation in the revenue record does not confer any right, title or interest. The reliance can be placed on judgment Smt. Swarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur & Others 1997 III AD SC (C) 708, AIR 1966 SC 2823. In the present proceedings, IP Nos. 1 to 4 have taken the stand that the sale deeds are null and void. According to my opinion, there is no substance in this argument of IP Nos. 1 to 4.
84. The details of the Consolidation proceedings have been highlighted in the written arguments by IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. The consolidation scheme has been amended. There is no dispute in this regard and an order has been passed dated 24.07.1989 Ex. IP8-11W1/13 by the Consolidation Officer, wherein the Lal Dora/Phirni has been extended including the land of Khasra nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10, which were sold by Sh. Raghbir Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. As per procedure, the land in the newly extended Lal Dora as per amended scheme have been alloted of various Khasra numbers as per order dated 29.11.1985. The order highlights the inclusion of lands in double area at Sl. No. 49 against the name of Sh.Surjan LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 52/54 Singh and Khasra numbers are matching with the referred reference Khasra numbers.
85. The order dated 24.07.1989 further establish that after withdrawal of land of Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh, one plot no. 1011 (8-2) was alloted to Sh. Krishan Kumar at Sl. No. 46 and additional land was also alloted of the Khasras in dispute. The IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 further proved the litigation filed by IP Nos. 1 to 4 vide Revision petition no. 215/89 against the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988 and 15.06.1988 along with IP Nos. 8 to 11. In the Revision petition, all the averments admitted with regard to sale purchase of the acquired land in dispute by IP Nos. 1 to 4. The amended consolidation scheme dated 15.06.1988 has been approved by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.10.1992. It is established and proved on record that IP Nos. 1 to 4 had legally sold the Khasra numbers 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 vide registered sale deeds and never challenged. The amended consolidation scheme has been approved, by which the land in dispute was alloted and later on acquired vide award no. 03/DC (W)/2005-06. The IP Nos. 1 to 4 have failed to prove any revenue record or any other record to establish their ownership and continuous possession after sale of the acquired land in dispute.
86. On the basis of above observation and discussion, IP Nos. 1 to 4 failed to prove their claim and accordingly, not entitled for any compensation. On the other hand, IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 have proved their entitlement in respect of claim for the acquired land in question.
LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 53/54 ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
87. In view of my observation and discussion on the issue no.1, it is held that IP Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled for any claim any in the compensation whereas the IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 are entitled for compensation as per their respective shares in the land acquired land in question.
88. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to LAC (West).
89. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
90. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 19th August, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 19.08.2017 LAC No. 31/A/10/07 (New No.28/16) Union of India (Mundka) vs. Raghubir Singh 54/54