Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 31 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1,
DISTRICT-NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
LAC No. 17B/2015
Award No. 19/2005-06
Village : Bawana
In the Matter of:
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Government of NCT of Delhi.
.....Petitioner.
VERSUS
Gaon Sabha, Through BDO(NW)
BDO Office Complex,
Alipur, Delhi. .....Interested Party.
Sh. Ram Phal s/o Nanak,
r/o H.No. 828, VPO
Bawana, Delhi. .....Objector.
Section 4 Notification dated: 27.1.03
Section 6 Declaration dated: 23.01.2004
Date of Institution of Reference: 19.08.2011
Date of Assignment to this court: 10.2.15
Date of Arguments: 21.08.15
Date of Order: 31.08.15
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 30-31 OF L. A. ACT.
1. Vide award No. 19/2005-06, land of village Bawana, Delhi was LAC-17B/2015 Page No.1/12 acquired by the Govt. for public purpose i.e. "Development of Narela Bawana Phase-II under planned development of Delhi". These were the proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of land measuring 3184 bighas 17 biswas in Village Bawana. The LAC assessed the total compensation of the land was Rs.1,61,27,90,407/- alongwith interest. The land was notified U/s 4 of the LA Act vide notification dated 27.01.03. The Delhi Govt. issued declaration U/s 6 of the L A Act vide notification dated 23.1.04 and notices U/s 9 and 10 of said act were also issued to interested persons and in response to the notices issued, claims were filed by 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 claimant Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner and was in possession of the land in dispute i.e. 86/18(4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. It was stat that the said land was acquired vide award no. 19/05-06 and the possession of the land was taken over from the claimant Gaon Sabha. It was stated that no other person except IP no. 1 is the owner of the land in question and other IPs have no valid or legal right in the land in question. It was prayed that compensation amount in respect of above land may be released in favour of the claimant.
4. Claim petition was also filed on behalf of Sh. Ram Phal wherein it was stated that he was the absolute owner in respect of land bearing LAC-17B/2015 Page No.2/12 khasra no. 86/18 admeasuring (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. It was stated that claimant was allotted the said khasra no. under the 20 Point Programme initiated by Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister and had also been issued the LR Form 20 dated 4.7.91. As stated Gram Sabha Bawana had also issued a certificate to irrigate the land in question which shows that the claimant apart from being its owner was also in physical cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was also stated that since claimant was in possession of the land in question, the gram sabha filed a petition under section 86 of the DLR Act for eviction of the claimant which was consigned to record room with an order directing the BDO to conduct an enquiry as to who were the people who were in physical possession o the land in question. However, since the BDO never conducted any enquiry till the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act, the claimant always remained in physical cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was stated that LAC had taken the possession of the suit directly from the claimant and no other person except the claimant is entitled for the entire amount of compensation in respect of khasra no. 86/18 ad-measuring (4-16) being the owner as well as in possession of the land in question.
5. Reply to the petition of objector Ram Phal was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha, IP no. 1 wherein it was stated that objector/IP no. 2 has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material LAC-17B/2015 Page No.3/12 facts. It was stated that as per Rule 185 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules 1959 no immovable property vested in or belonging to Gaon Sabha shall be transferred by sale, mortgage or exchange except on the resolution of Gaon Panchayat and with the sanction of Chief Commissioner to which aspect IP no. 2 has failed. It was stated that IP no. 2 has no legal right, title in respect of the land in question and has no locus standi to file the present claim. It was denied that IP no. 2 was allotted any land or Gaon Sabha issued any certificate to irrigate the land in question. It was submitted that the Pradhan was not competent and authorized by the competent authority to issue any allotment certificate and LR Form 37 and receive lease money. It was denied that IP no. 2 is entitled for the entire compensation being owner in possession of the land in question. Accordingly it was prayed that the claim petition of IP no. 2 be dismissed.
6. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 23.04.12:-
1) Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation, if any, to what amount?
2) Relief.
7. In evidence, both the IPs have led their respective evidence.
8. IP no. 1 examined Sh. T. S Joshi, IP1W1, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Patwari as IP1W2. IP1W1 Sh. T. S Joshi brought the original possession report dated 5.7.06 prepared in award no. 19/2005-06/DC/NW in respect of village Bawana Ex. IP1W1/1. IP1W2 had brought summoned record LAC-17B/2015 Page No.4/12 which was collectively Ex. IP1W2/1.
9. In support of his case IP no. 2 examined himself as IP2W1, Sh. Saheb Singh as IP2W2, Sh. Narender Kumar as IP2W3 and Sh. Trilok Chand as IP2W4. IP2W1 had reiterated his claim and relied upon original certificate issued by Gram Pradhan dated 8.2.81 and LR Form 37 dated 4.7.81 which were Ex. IP2W1/1 and IP2W1/2. IP2W2 supported the case of the IP no. 2. Original of order of RA dated 30.4.1985 which was Marked A was brought by IP2W3 and the same was Ex. IP2W3/1. IP2W3 Sh. Narender Kumar, Record Keeper, Revenue Department had brought the original record of file of case 26/RA/83 titled as Gaon Sabha Bawana Vs. Jeet Ram and the list of the cases pending u/s 86 A DLR Act was Ex. IP2W3/2(Colly). IP2W4 Sh. Trilok chand had brought the original file bearing no. 36/RA/94/SO(C)/N titled as Ram Phal s/o Sh. Nanak Vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana and exhibited the same as IP2W4/1(Colly).
10.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. 1 Owner in possession
2. 2 Claimed himself to be owner in
possession being land allotted
to him under 20 Point
Prorgamme. Possession
11.I have gone through the material available on record and have LAC-17B/2015 Page No.5/12 heard the arguments addressed by counsel for respective IPs. My findings in the present reference petition are given below:-
12.Issue No. 1. What right, interest or title, the IPs have in the acquired land?:- In order to prove this issue, the respective IPs have led their evidence. It is the case of the claimant Ram Phal that he was the absolute owner in respect of land bearing khasra no. 86/18 admeasuring (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi and that he was allotted the said khasra no. under the 20 Point Programme initiated by Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister and had also been issued the LR Form 20 dated 4.7.91. He also averred in claim that Gram Sabha Bawana had also issued a certificate to irrigate the land in question which shows that the claimant apart from being its owner was also in physical cultivatory possession of the land in question. It is further the case of claimant that since claimant was in possession of the land in question, the gram sabha filed a petition under section 86 of the DLR Act for eviction of the claimant which was consigned to record room with an order directing the BDO to conduct an enquiry as to who were the people who were in physical possession o the land in question. On the other hand, the Gaon Sabha has submitted that it is the recorded owner and was in possession of land in dispute and none other than IP No. 1 is the owner of land.
13.The IP2W1 Ram Phal relied upon certificate issued by Gaon Sabha Pradhan dated 08.02.1981 and LR Form 37 dated 04.07.1981 and LAC-17B/2015 Page No.6/12 same were Ex. IP2W1/1 to Ex. IP2W1/2 and copy of order passed in case titled Gaon Sabha Bawana Vs. Jeet Ram dated 30.04.1985. All these documents have been duly proved by the IP2W1 as per law in his evidence. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion put to him to the effect that Gaon Pradhan of village Bawana was not competent to allot any land on lease basis. Sh. Sahib Singh was examined as IP2W2 who is Pradhan and in his evidence, he has stated that Ex. IP2W1/1 to IP2W1/2 bears his signatures at point A and same were issued by him on behalf of Gaon Panchayat Bawana. He further stated that IP No. 2 was in actual physical possession of land and cultivating the same immediately after allotment by him on behalf of Gaon Sabha till its possession was taken by the LAC.
14.IP2W3 Sh. Narender Kumar, Record Keeper from Revenue Department is also one of the most important witness produced before the court who has proved the case titled as Gaon Sabha Bawana Vs. Jeet Ram and copy of order dated 30.04.85 was Ex. IP2W3/1. He further brought the complete record of case No. 26/RA/83 titled as Gaon Sabha Bawana Vs. Jeet Ram and same was Ex. IP2W3/2.
15.IP2W4 Sh. Trilok Chand, Kanoongo, SDM Office, Model Town, Delhi brought the original file bearing No. 36/RA/94/SO(C)/N titled as Ram Phal S/o Sh. Nanak Vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana and copy of same was Ex. IP2W4/1.
16. Gaon Sabha produced Sh. T. S. Joshi, Kanoongo from office of LAC LAC-17B/2015 Page No.7/12 North as IP1W1 who brought the original possession report dated 05.07.2006 prepared in Award No. 19/2005-06/DC/NW, in respect of Village-Bawana and same was Ex. IP1W1/1. In his examination in chief he stated that as per possession report, at the time of taking of possession vide above award, the land was lying vacant and no hindrance from any corner was caused. But in his cross-examination, he admitted that in the document Ex. IP1W1/1, there is no mention of persons from whom the possession of khasra numbers were taken vide above award. The other witness produced by Gaon Sabha i.e. IP1W2 Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Patwari has further demolished the case of Gaon Sabha by stating that he does not know when Gaon Sabha came into possession of land under reference or that he does not know whether Gaon Sabha initiated any proceedings U/s 86 A of the DLR Act against IP No. 2.
17.It is argued that IP No. 2 has proved that he was in possession of the land in question as he has been successful in proving his case. The Pradhan of village Sh. Sahib Singh has also deposed in favour of IP No. 2.
18.Rather, by initiation of eviction proceedings, the IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha itself admitted the possession of the IP No. 2 over the land in question. Moreover, Ex. IP2W3/2 clearly shows the name of IP No. 2 at Sl. No. 77. To this effect, the reliance is placed upon AIR 1960 page 100 and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which clearly states that "admission is the best piece of evidence".
LAC-17B/2015 Page No.8/1219.The Gaon Sabha has argued that bhumidari rights have not been declared in favour of IP No. 2 by concerned revenue authorities. Hence, claim of IP No. 2 be rejected. The said arguments is not tenable. 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." But here is a catch. From perusal of file, though it is clear that this Court has now to decide regarding Bhumidari rights and revenue authorities could not decide so, but in the present matter by way of record, IP No. 2 has been able to prove his possession only but extent of possession has not been proved. There is no khasra girdawari in his favour. There is no khasra girdawari issued by Irrigation Department in his favour. This case is on different footing than the three other cases decided by this Court today. Though Gaon Sabha has also not been LAC-17B/2015 Page No.9/12 able to prove as to how entries came in their favour but still there was no challenge to those entries by IP No. 2 on the basis that he is bhumidar. He could have proved time of possession by leading cogent evidence but he could not do so. Only the possession is established in favour of IP No. 2.
20.Since ownership of Gaon Sabha on the land in question has been proved and possession of IP No. 2 has also been established on the land in question. So now question remains as to how much share/ratio both the IP No. 1 and IP No. 2 are entitled. The counsel for both the parties have drawn my attention to one decision passed by Ms. Poonam S. Bamba, Ld. ADJ in case titled UOI Vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana decided on 08.02.2008 as well as judgment passed by Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ADJ and Predecessor of this court in case titled UOI vs. Gaon Sabha Bawana decided on 27.04.2013 wherein various judgments of Superior Courts in this respect have been discussed. Though these judgments are not determining factor but observation and interpretation in view of the law laid down by the Superior Courts can be helpful. In the judgment passed by Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ, though 100% compensation was granted to IP No. 2 and nothing was granted to IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha Bawana and in the second judgment passed by Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. Predecessor of this Court, 80% of compensation was granted to IP No. 2 who was held to be in cultivatory possession and 20% of compensation was granted to IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha LAC-17B/2015 Page No.10/12 Bawana on the basis of entries. Reliance was also placed upon judgment titled Raj Singh Vs. UOI reported in 2009(III) AD (Delhi) 114, Moti Lal Jain Vs. Mukhtiyar Singh" reported in 117 (2005) DLT 538, judgment titled "Rattan Singh Vs. UOI reported in 1993 (26) DRJ 577 and Rama Shankar Vs. Mukhitiare reported in 2007 (98) DRJ 517 and it was concluded that where a person proves possession but no application U/s 85 of DLR Act was moved nor was declared owner, should be given compensation in the ratio of 40:60. When a person proves his possession U/s 85 of DLR Act, should be given compensation in the ratio of 80:20. The person in actual cultivatory physical possession for three years prior to acquisition should be given 80% of compensation.
21.So crux of the above observation is that by implication IP No. 2 can be treated as Bhumidar in possession. But this fact can also not be ignored that Gaon Sabha has remained recorded bhumidar till acquisition and IP No. 2 have never asserted their right by taking appropriate steps. Though, counsel for IP No. 2 has argued in view of the above settled law that he is entitled for 100% of compensation but in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to give 100% compensation to IP No. 2 as Gaon Sabha is also recorded owner, hence it is held that IP No. 1 is entitled for 20% share in compensation amount on one hand and IP No. 2 is entitled for 80% share in compensation amount on other hand. This issue is decided LAC-17B/2015 Page No.11/12 accordingly.
22.Relief:- In view of the above finding, the reference is decided. IP No. 1 is entitled for 20% share in compensation amount and IP No. 2 is entitled for 80% share in compensation amount for land bearing khasra no. 86/18(4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bawana, Delhi. Payment be called with up to date interest in the name of entitled IPs. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IPs 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.s after receiving the amount from concerned bank. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (AJAY GOEL)
on 31.08.2015 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi.
LAC-17B/2015 Page No.12/12