Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 23 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1,
DISTRICT-NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
LAC No. 56B/2015
Award No. 01/1998-99
Village : Shahbad Daulatpur
In the Matter of:
Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. .....Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Gaon Sabha, Village Sahibabad
Daulat Pur.
2. Sh. P. K. Singhal, Director
M/s. Shatabdi Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Shatabdi House, 3 LSC,
Rohit Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi. .....Interested Persons.
Award Announced on: 20.03.1997
Section 4 Notification dated: 28.04.1995
Section 6 Declaration dated: 26.04.1996
Date of Institution of Reference: 25.09.2002
Date of Assignment to this court: 16.04.2015
Date of Arguments: 16.04.2015
Date of Order: 23.04.2015
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 30-31 OF L. A. ACT.
1. Vide award No. 1/1998-99, land of village Shahbad Daulat Pur, Delhi LAC-56B/2015 Page No.1/15 was acquired by the Govt. for public purpose i.e. "Rohini Residential Scheme Phase-IV". These were the proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of land measuring 1852 bighas 06 biswas in Village Shahbad Daulatpur. The LAC assessed the total compensation of the land as Rs.29,53,84,866.50/- alongwith interest. The matter was referred to the Court under section 30-31 of L. A. Act as there was a dispute among the interested persons of the acquired land. The notification U/s 4 & 17 of L. A. Act was issued on 28.04.1995 and declaration U/s 6 of L. A. Act was issued on 26.04.1996. It was further pleaded in award that notices U/s 9 and 10 of the L. A. Act were issued to the interested persons and in response to notices issued, the claims were filed by the interested persons.
2. Notices of the case were issued to the IPs as per memorandum sent by the LAC.
3. Claim petition was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha wherein it was stated that Gaon Sabha is the bhumidar and in possession of suit land situated in village Sahibabad, Daulatpur, Delhi and LAC forwarded the compensation amount to the Court for disbursement to rightful owner and no person except Gaon Sabha has any right, title or interest in the suit land. It was also stated that compensation amount be paid to the Gaon Sabha Sahibabad, Daulatpur, Delhi.
4. Reply was filed by IP No. 2 to the claim of I.P. No. 1/Gaon Sabha wherein preliminary objections were raised to the effect that said LAC-56B/2015 Page No.2/15 land was illegally, without according any opportunity of hearing to the IP No. 2, on false reports vested in the name of Gaon Sabha by Revenue Assistant under Section 81 of DLR Act vide non-speaking order dated 26.02.95. It was further stated that Gaon Sabha is not entitled to any compensation amount. It was also stated that claim application of Gaon Sabha is not maintainable as the same is neither signed by authorized person nor supported by affidavit. On merits, it was stated that only IP No. 2 is entitled to compensation amount. It was also stated that prayer of Gaon Sabha is misconceived and unjust. It was prayed that claim of the Gaon Sabha may be dismissed with costs.
5. The claim was filed on behalf of I.P. No. 2 wherein it was stated that IP No. 2 has purchased the land bearing khasra no. 43/14/3 measuring 2 bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi from the recorded bhumidar Smt. Vidya, D/o Sh. Layak Ram vide sale deed dated 02.04.1990 and full consideration amount of Rs. 25,000/- with stamp duty and corporation tax amounting to Rs. 2000/- was duly paid to said Smt. Vidya. It was averred that peaceful and vacant possession of land was duly handed over to claimant and was taken over by the claimant from said Smt. Vidya on 02.04.1990 itself. It was also pleaded that IP No. 2 has purchased the other land bearing Khasra No. 43/16/2(1-14), 17(4-4) and 18 (1-2) total measuring 7 bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi from the recorded LAC-56B/2015 Page No.3/15 bhumidar Smt. Vidya, D/o Sh. Layak Ram vide sale deed dated 02.04.1990 and full consideration amount of Rs. 85,000/- alongwith stamp duty and corporation tax amounting to Rs. 6,800/- was duly paid to said Smt. Vidya and peaceful and vacant possession of land was handed over to claimant and was taken over by claimant from said Smt. Vidya on 02.04.1990 itself. It was pleaded in claim that IP No. 2 remained in continuous physical possession of land till the same was acquired by government and the possession of said land was taken by LAC from the present claimant. It was also stated that though the said land was purchased by present claimant but the mutation of land was not entered and sanctioned in the name of present claimant in the revenue records. It was also stated that no person except the present claimant is entitled to receive the compensation in lieu of acquisition of said land. It was also averred that vide order dated 26.02.1995 passed by the Revenue Assistant in case file bearing No. 360/RA/90, the said land was vested in the name of IP No. 1 U/s 81 of DLR Act, 1954 behind the back of present claimant and said order is unjustified against facts and law and violates the principles of natural justice. It was stated that said order is ab-initio and does not have any binding effect on present claimant. Hence, claim was filed by IP No. 2 and it was prayed that reference may be decided in favour of IP No. 2 and against IP No. 1 and compensation may be ordered to be released in favour of IP No. 2.
6. Reply was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha to the claim of IP No. 2 LAC-56B/2015 Page No.4/15 wherein it was stated that only Gaon Sabha who was in possession of suit land. It was admitted in reply that land has vested U/s 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act to Gaon Sabha. It was also stated that it is only the Gaon Sabha who is entitled to receive the compensation. It was prayed that claim be dismissed with costs.
7. Claim was also filed by one Sh. Bhagwan Swaroop son of late Sh. Sohan Pal wherein it was stated that claimant Bhagwan Swaroop is the owner /GPA holder of Sh. SitaRam Gupta son of Sh. Roshan Lal Gupta of an area of 1 bigha out of Khasra No. 212 min situated in Revenue Estate of Sahabad Daulatpur, Delhi. It was also stated that Sh. Kulwant Ringh/Rana son of Sh. Devender Singh is the owner/GPA holder of Sh. Radha Ka Narain S/o Sh. Bihari Lal who executed the GPA in favour of Sh. Sita Ram Gupta of said area of land and Sh. Radha Ka Narain was the bhumidar of said area of 1 bigha out of khasra No. 212 min. It was stated that land of above said khasra number has been acquired with Award No. 1/98-99 Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi and placed in Block-A. It was prayed that compensation may be paid to the claimant and nobody else has any right or interest in the land given above.
8. Vide order dated 13.03.2007, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court observed that claimant No. 326 Sh. Bhagwan Sarup has sought compensation of acquired land bearing Khasra No. 212 situated in revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi and said Khasra No. 212 is not mentioned in reference made by concerned LAC in the LAC-56B/2015 Page No.5/15 present LAC No. 10/2/06 titled UOI vs. Gaon Sabha Shahbad Daulatpur and accordingly, it was held that claim filed on behalf of claimant No. 326 has no relevance to the proceedings of this reference and claim petition alongwith documents filed on behalf of IP No. 326 were returned to claimant No. 326.
9. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 02.02.2007:-
1) To what amount of compensation each of the IPS are entitled?
2) Relief.
10.In evidence, all the IPs have led their respective evidence.
11.Proxy counsel for IP No. 1 filed and tendered in evidence the Khatoni for the year 1989-90 pertaining to Village Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi as Ex. IP1/1, attested copy of Aks Sajra pertaining to village Sahibabad Daulatpur Delhi was Ex. IP1/2, attested copy of khasra girdawaris pertaining to Village Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi for the year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 were collectively Ex. IP1/3. Thereafter no further evidence was led on behalf of IP No. 1
12.Sh. P. K. Singhal Director of IP No. 2 was examined as IP2W1.
13.During proceedings of the case, none appeared on behalf of IP No. 2, hence IP No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.07.2010.
14.The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide its separate judgment dated 18.12.2010 decided and answered the reference petition and held that IP No. 1 being recorded bhumidar and in possession of acquired LAC-56B/2015 Page No.6/15 land is entitled to receive the entire compensation.
15.After passing of abovesaid judgment, application U/o 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of IP No. 2 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 18.12.2010 and notice of said application was issued to opposite party. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court after going through the reply and hearing the arguments of parties, allowed the application and set aside the judgment dated 18.12.2010 with costs of Rs. 10,000/- and delay in filing the application U/o 9 Rule 13 CPC was also condoned. Thereafter, IP2W1 was cross-examined by counsel for IP No. 1
16.Later on, IP No. 1 moved application U/s 151 CPC for leading additional evidence and after perusing the reply and hearing the arguments, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court allowed the said application and IP1W1 was examined and discharged. Thereafter, evidence of IP No. 1 was closed vide order dated 31.10.2013 and matter was put up for final arguments.
17.Now the details of IPs in present reference are given below in tabulation form for better elucidation of facts:-
Sr. No. IP No. Basis 1.0 1 Khasra Girdawari Entries 2. 2 Sale Deed
18.I have gone through the material available on record and have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for respective IPs. My LAC-56B/2015 Page No.7/15 findings in the present reference petition are given below:-
19.Issue No. 1. To what amount of compensation each of the IPS are entitled?:- The onus to prove this issue was on the IPs. Both the IPs have led their respective evidence. The Counsel for IP No. 1/Gaon Sabha has submitted that mutation is in the name of IP No. 1 and it's possession is duly established, hence IP No. 1 entitled to the compensation. It is further argued by IP No. 1 that IP No. 2 has submitted that land was never mutated in its favour and vesting order was never challenged, so IP No. 2 has no right or claim in the land in question. On the other hand, IP No. 2 has submitted that he is purchaser of land in question against consideration and has no knowledge regarding vesting of land in question in favour of IP No. 1 and is entitled to compensation because IP No. 2 is owner and in possession of land in question. The respective documents in favour of IP No. 1 and 2 are not disputed. IP No. 1 has got mutated the land in its favour after getting it vested in it. On the other hand, IP No. 2 is carrying sale deed etc. in its favour. The predecessor in interest of both the parties is not disputed because khatoni relied upon by IP No. 1 i.e. IP1/1 shows the name of Smt. Vidya as previous owner who is vendor of IP No. 2. Thereafter entry is made regarding change in the name of IP No. 1. The Sale deed in favour of IP No. 2 is also executed by Smt. Vidya, so predecessor in interest is not disputed. Two questions are to be seen in the present matter as to who is LAC-56B/2015 Page No.8/15 owner and who is in possession. If IP No. 1 is held to be owner in possession then by implication of law, IP No. 1 will be entitled to 100% of compensation and if IP No. 2 is held so then IP No. 2 will be entitled to 100% of compensation but if ownership and possession vested differently in two parties then ratio will be decided as to who is entitled for how much share. The law in this respect is well settled. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Bihari & Ors. Vs. UOI 47 (1992) DLT 300. Further Hon'ble High Court in its judgment in the case titled as "Raj Singh Vs. UOI reported in 2009(III) AD (Delhi) 114 has held that in cases where a person has been declared in actual possession by revenue court or in cases where the proceedings U/s 85 of DLR Act could not be completed because of the acquisition or in any other cases of like nature, it will be appropriate, if the compensation is disbursed in the ratio of 20:80 i.e. 20% should go to actual owner and 80% to the person in cultivatory possession. The Hon'ble High Court discussed all other judgments in this regard like Moti Lal Jain Vs. Mukhtiyar Singh" reported in 117 (2005) DLT 538 and judgment titled "Rattan Singh Vs. UOI reported in 1993 (26)DRJ 577".
20.Now in the present matter, first of all it is to be seen as to who is owner of land. It is settled law that mutation entries does not confer any right, title and interest in the suit property. Merely, IP No. 1 has LAC-56B/2015 Page No.9/15 been recorded owner in the revenue record does not mean that by these entries only IP No. 1 be declared to be owner. The reliance is placed on judgment titled H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. Vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3725-3726 of 2015 dated 17.04.2015 wherein Hon'ble Court discussed the law laid down in judgment "Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 and discussed that "Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment".
21.The law is also well settled that any stray entry will also not confer any right, title or interest in favour of person in whose favour the entry is made. There should be notice to opposite party if there is any change in khasra girdawaris ad it should not be done without prior notice. All principles of natural justice should be followed. The reliance is placed on judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. passed in RFA No. 123/09, dated 21.08.2009, wherein it was held that "Trial Court also failed to appreciate that any LAC-56B/2015 Page No.10/15 change in khasra Girdawari and Khatoni cannot be done without prior notice to the affected parties as per Section 66 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962. No notice of change in khasra entires was ever received by the appellants. Moreover, mutation/revenue entries, do not create any title and are not evidence of title".
22.What is true about Khatoni is also true about the Khasra Girdawaris and to this effect, reliance is placed on judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3821/2011 titled Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 21.03.2013 wherein it was held that "As we have already noticed, the object of harvest inspection/girdawari is to collect accurate information regarding crops, change in rights, rent and possession of land, amendments required in the village map, the data with regard to crops for the purpose of overall planning. One must understand that basis or nature of a revenue entry, namely, it neither confers nor divest a party of its title whether proprietary or possession and is a mere fiscal entry recorded to update the revenue record." So change in entries in khasra girdawari and khatoni stands on same footing.
23.In the present matter, the order vide which the land was vested in favour of IP No. 1 has not been proved; that file has not been called; how order was passed has not been made out; whether any notice LAC-56B/2015 Page No.11/15 was issued to Smt. Vidya is also not made out. IP No. 1 and other revenue officials are themselves at the helm of affairs and entries entered into by them for their benefit should bear the test of law. How the entries were incorporated, is not made out. What is infact the order is also not made out. The corresponding Khasra Girdawari are also not on record. It is not disputed that entries have changed hands from name of Smt. Vidya to Gaon Sabha so ownership and possession of Smt. Vidya is not disputed. It is not the case of IP No. 1 that even during the time of ownership vesting in favour of Smt. Vidya, IP No. 1 was ever in possession of suit land. The case of IP No. 1 is that when ownership changed, titled also changed. Even otherwise, khasra girdawari Ex. IP1/3 produced by IP No. 1 shows that there is no crop on the field, meaning thereby these are open piece of land without any crop. Rather in these khasra girdawari, there is mention of land of some other person in whose name either Safeda or Chardiwari or school is mentioned but there is nothing written in the column meant for crops kharif and rabi etc. against the khasra Nos. involved in the reference. It is settled law that possession of open land goes with ownership meaning thereby in the present matter, it is clear cut established that no crop was being standing during whole of the time in the suit land and entries in khasra girdawari has been changed without going on spot just on the basis of change in the entry of khatoni. There is nothing on the record that even vesting order was communicated to any person.
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.12/15The land in the present matter was acquired vide award No. 01/1998-99 and registered sale deeds are of the year 1990. The vesting order is dated 1995 and even if mutation was not got entered by IP No. 2 does not mean that its right extinguished. There is no rebuttal to evidence of IP No. 2 that he came to know in the year 1998 that land in question has been vested in favour of IP No.
1. If there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348 (DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question. Rather, it has been held in judgment titled Govt. of NCT Delhi Vs. Poonam Gupta 2005 (125) DLT 423 that "rights of bhumidari as matured are to be seen from the date when petition under Section 85 of DLR Act was filed. If person had acquired those rights on the said date, mere delay in deciding the rights does not debar the said person from the benefits which a declared bhumidar is entitled."
24.So IP No. 1 has failed to prove that principles of natural justice of IP No. 2 have not been violated and all the due procedures were taken before passing of the vesting order and stray entries showing change in the name of IP No. 1 is not admissible piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon so the IP No. 1 cannot be declared to be owner LAC-56B/2015 Page No.13/15 of the suit land.
25.Now as far as possession of land is concerned, as observed earlier possession of open land goes with ownership and ownership of land has been held with IP no. 2. Even otherwise neither of parties have shown the earlier khasra girdawaris and later on khasra girdawari but onus to prove the same was on the IP No. 1, once it is established that previous owner was in possession of suit land. It has also not been proved that Smt. Vidya ever participated in proceedings initiated by revenue authority regarding change of entry. Moreover, if IP No. 1 was claiming to be in possession on the basis of vesting order then it is duty bound to prove that he was in possession of land thereafter dispossessing Vidya and IP No. 1 is not entitled to any compensation. Rather IP1W1 has stated that he has no knowledge that IP No. 2 is in physical possession of suit land. Kabza report of LAC is also not proved and brought on record as the same could suggest as to from whom LAC has taken kabza so presumption of possession lies with IP No. 2. Accordingly, in view of the above observation, IP No. 2 is held entitled for 100% of the compensation.
26.Relief:- In view of the above finding, the reference is decided. IP No. 2 is hereby granted 100% of compensation in respect of khasra no. 43/14/3 measuring 2 bigha, Khasra No. 43/16/2(1-14), 17(4-4) and 18 (1-2) measuring 7 bigha total measuring 9 bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi. District LAC-56B/2015 Page No.14/15 Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the I.P No. 2 in above terms as per above findings. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC. District Nazir will distribute the amount as per above observation to the entitled I.P. after receiving the amount from concerned bank. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (AJAY GOEL)
on 23.04.2015 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi.
LAC-56B/2015 Page No.15/15