Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Union Of India vs Mandir Siri Sita Ramji & Ors. on 3 July, 2015

              In The Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
                 Additional District Judge­01 (East)
                     Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

LAC No.9/2/08

In the matter of :­

Union of India            Versus       Mandir Siri Sita Ramji & Ors.

                                 O R D E R

03.07.2015

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application U/o 1 rule 10 r/w/s 151 CPC, filed by the applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd.

2. It is averred in the application under consideration that applicant Sh. Radhey Shayam Sharma is a duly constituted attorney of M/s. Texmaco Ltd, who was/is owner of the land bearing khasra Nos.1351(7­01), 1356(3­03), 1357(2­00), 1337(4­16), 1335(0­06), 1350(4­01), 1349(3­09), 1342(10­13), 1339(3­09), 1340(4­19), 1341(8­12), 1273(1­07), 1275(0­04), 1336(4­16), 1343(6­18), 1344(6­03), 1338(10­10) and parts of khasra Nos.1352, 1348, 1345, 1259, 1355, 1269 and 1268 of area measuring 88 bighas and 12 biswas, which is situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Karkardooma, Delhi and same has been acquired vide award No.21/2004­09. The applicant is entitled to receive amount of compensation of the acquired land. The applicant had also moved an application for receiving the amount of compensation before concerned Land Acquisition LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.1 of 8 Collector, as it has not been wrongly made party by the Land Acquisition Collector. A very valuable right of the applicant is involved, as it is a necessary party in this reference and present reference cannot be decided effectually and completely in the absence of present applicant. No other party shall be adversely effected by impleading the applicant, as one of the party to the petition and prayed for its impleadment.

3. Reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of IP no.1. It is averred therein that application is not maintainable, as IP no.1 Mandir Sri Sita Ramji was owner throughout of khasra numbers, as mentioned in para no.1 of the application. There has never been any transfer deed, as per section 17 of Registration Act or as per Transfer of Property Act. So, applicant is neither owner nor is having any right in the said khasra numbers. The applicant has never filed any claim petition before LAC, so, he could not be made as interested party. The possession of land in question has been taken by LAC from IP no.1 and not from applicant, so, no legal right accrues to applicant. The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not apply to land in question, which is situated in Village Karkardooma, Delhi. The land in Village Karkardooma falls within the jurisdiction of Shahdara Municipality before promulgation of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which was LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.2 of 8 excluded from the purview of operation of Delhi Land Reforms Act, as such, land in question continues to be governed by the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 and UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and is not governed by Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 or Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1886. So, there is no Bhumidari right under the law applicable to the land falls under Karkardooma/Shahdara and the documents filed by the applicant alongwith application are null and void and without any legal consequence. The alleged agreement dated 10.10.1996 is without any legal consequence, as land in question was already notified for acquisition. No right of Bhumidari could be declared, as alleged by applicant or even by any person on behalf of Mandir Sita Ramji or by any such statement made in the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, because the legal jurisdiction of declaration of Bhumidari rights lies only with the court of Revenue Assistant under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was never made applicable to the land falls in Karkardooma/Shahdara municipality, so, the word Bhumidari is beyond jurisdiction of Civil Court. There is no Bhumidar or Bhumidari rights under the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 or UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. All documents or alleged compromise arrived between IP no.1 and M/s. Texmaco Ltd., as LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.3 of 8 stated, are against law and are inoperative and are not binding on IP no.1. The court of Revenue Assistant under the provisions of UP Land Revenue Act had never declared applicant, as owner or in possession, as licensee or otherwise, on the land alleged in para no.1 of application. Another person Mohar Singh once himself alleged to be owner in possession of Khasra No. 1337(4­16) which is also mentioned part of land in para no.1 of the application. The petitioner of Mohar Singh was rejected and he had filed a petition for prosecution of Acharya Arun Dev U/s 193 IPC r/w/s 340 Cr.PC on the basis of statement made on his behalf in suit No.34/94 before the court of Sh. I.S. Mehta, Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The court of Revenue Assistant / SDM, Shahdara, Delhi had rejected the petition of Mohar Singh on the ground that no statement of compromise could be made in civil court, as land in question was governed by the provisions of UP Land Revenue Act and Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 and no Bhumidari could be declared therein, as Bhumidari rights are vested only in Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 or Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1886, which have never been applied to the land falls in Village Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi. Applicant never made an application before the Revenue Assistant, Shahdara, Delhi for declaration of ownership rights of land mentioned in para no.1 of the application, as such any claim made by applicant is LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.4 of 8 illegal, baseless and time barred.

4. Replying to the applicant on merits, it is averred that neither ownership nor any other right accrues or has ever been declared in favour of the applicant by any court. The land has never been under acquisition since 1966 and not 2004­2005. The possession was obtained by LAC/Patwari from IP no.1 and not from applicant. No application was filed before LAC by applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. and there was no record of rights before LAC in favour of applicant, so, the allegations levelled against the Collector are baseless and wrong and prayed for rejection of the application under consideration.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by Sh. S. Chaterjee, Regional Administrative Head, North on behalf of The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited. It is denied that M/s. Texmaco Ltd is owner of alleged land or that it is entitled to receive compensation. The collector, on consideration of claim of M/s. Texmaco Ltd, has not made it as interested party, as no part compensation is due and payable to it. It is denied that applicant has not been wrongly made party. It is denied that any right of applicant is involved or it is a necessary party in the present reference or issue in present reference cannot be decided in the absence of applicant and prayed for dismissal of application with costs. LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.5 of 8

6. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is contended that applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. is claiming the ownership of the land measuring 88 bighas and 12 biswas acquired under award No.21/2004­05 and on this basis, applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. wants to be impleaded as interested party for the purpose of claiming compensation. It is further contended that IP no.1 is having registered sale deed of 24.10.1935 and the records are also appearing in the name of IP no.1 such as Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi. Whereas, no revenue record stands in the name of applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. It is further contended that no claim petition was filed by applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. before LAC and consequently name of applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. is not appearing in the list of IPs in reference. It is further contended that provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are not applicable to the land in question and the compromise as alleged arrived at between Acharya Arun Dev and M/s. Texmaco Ltd. has no validity in the eyes of law. It is further contended that according to the judgment of Assistant Collector, Delhi passed in Madir Sri Sita Ramji v. Khem Chand & Others, it has been held that the land is governed by U.P. Land Revenue Act and Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 i.e. land of village Karkardooma. LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.6 of 8 It is further contended that judgment passed by the Assistant Collector is in rem, so, the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd. has relied upon compromise and certain other documents.

9. The jurisdiction of the Reference Court, vis­a­vis ''persons interested'' has been explained by the Court in Shyamali Das vs. Illa Chowdhry and others,AIR 2007 SC 215, holding that the Reference Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application of pro interesse suo, or in the nature thereof. The Court held as under:

''The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction is to determine adequacy and otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector''. Thus holding that,''It is not within his domain to entertain any application of pro interesse suo or in the nature thereof.'' The plea of the appellant therein, stating that the title dispute be directed to be decided by the Reference Court Itself, since the appellant was not a person interested in the award, was rejected by this Court, observing that the Reference Court does not have the power to enter into an application under Order 1, Rule 10,CPC.

20.(v) A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894, but cannot make an application for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court.

10. In view of above, the application filed u/o 1 rule 10 CPC by applicant M/s. Texmaco Ltd., being merit­less, is dismissed. Announced in the open Court on 03.07.2015 ( Virender Kumar Goyal ) Additional District Judge­01 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 03.07.15 LAC No.9/2/08 Page No.8 of 8