Delhi District Court
Uoi vs . Chet Ram & Ors. on 20 August, 2014
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District,
Room No. 602, Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 159/2011
Union of India, (South), New Delhi
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
...... Petitioner
Versus
Interested Persons namely
1. Chet Ram Sharma (since deceased), S/o Late Shri Lila Ram,
R/o B1/12, second floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi,
through his legal representative Brahm Dutt Sharma (B.D. Sharma) / IP No. 2
2. B.D. Sharma, S/o Shri Chet Ram Sharma,
R/o B1/12, second floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
3. Konark Sharma, S/o Shri B.D. Sharma,
R/o B1/12, second floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi,
Through his duly constituted Attorney Shri B.D. Sharma / IP No. 2.
4. Smt. Sunita Sharma, W/o Late Shri S.D. Sharma,
R/o B1/12, second floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
through her duly constituted Attorney Shri B.D. Sharma / IP No. 2.
5. Khem Chand, S/o Sh. Slagram Bhardwaj,
R/o 627, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
6. Gugan Chand, S/o Sh. Ram Chander,
R/o 627, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
Through LRs - (i) Shri Mahesh Kumar Pandey,
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 1 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
(ii) Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (iii) Smt. Bimla Rani, (iv) Shri Amit Pandey,
(v) Shri Manoj Pandey, (vi) Smt. Birma Devi
7. Ashok Kumar, Ram Kumar, Subash,
Sons of Sh. Kashi Ram & Sukh Lal, S/o Late Sh. Lala Kishan,
All R/o 513, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
8. Dinesh Bhardwaj & Suresh Bhardwaj,
Sons of Sh. Sham Lal Gaur, R/o 1/29C, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
9. Smt. Prem Lata, W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander,
R/o H. No.522, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
10. Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj, S/o Sh. Kali Charan,
R/o 531, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
11. Vikas Pujari Mandir Kalkaji, New Delhi.
12. Vinod Bhardwaj, S/o Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o 534, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
13. Tarun Gaur & Arun Gaur, Ss/o Sh. Megh Raj Gaur,
R/o 566, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
14. Lalit Pratap Gaur, S/o Manohar Lal Gaur, R/o 3663B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
15. Gauri Shankar, S/o Sh. Mehtab, R/o 821 Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
16. Gyan Prakash, R/o H. No. 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017,
Rajiv Kumar Bhardwaj, R/o H. No. 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi - 110017,
Vinod Kumar, R/o H.No. 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017,
Satish Bhardwaj, R/o H.No. 593A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
(All Sons of Late Shri Jailal)
17. Kishan chand sharma, S/o Sh. Nityanand Sharma,
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 2 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
R/o 677, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
18. Braham Dutt & Shyam Dutt, Sons of Sh. Deen Dayal,
Smt. Resam, W/o Sh. Late Deen Dayal, R/o H.No. 513, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
19. Ved Prakash, S/o Late Hari Ram, R/o Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
20. Hans Raj, S/o Sh. Bala Prasad, R/o Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
21. Durga Prasad, Hukam Chand, Kirpa Ram & Bhagwat Dayal,
Sons of Sh. Pyare Lal, R/o 648, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
22. Mahesh, Rajesh, Shiv Kumar & Ashok Kumar, Sons of Late Sh. Kishan Chand,
Smt. Kunti Devi, W/o Late Sh. Mukesh Kumar, All R/o Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
23. Nand Kishore, Adopted Son of Salagram,
R/o. C26, DLF Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana.
24. Shashi Bala & Vijay Laxmi, D/o Sh. Prem.
25. Madan Lal Sharma & Anil Sharma, Both Ss/o Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharma,
R/o Flat No. 32, Plot No. 26, Jaina Apartments, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi.
26. Yogeshwar Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharma,
R/o J134, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
27. Ravinder Kumar Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Kishan Sarup Kaushik,
R/o 7, Jeevan Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana.
28. Smt. Sarda Sharma, W/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal Sharma,
R/o 453, Pathan Pura, Shahdara, Delhi.
29. Ashok Kaushik, S/o Sh. Prem Narain Kaushik,
R/o 1556, Sector21, Gurgaon, Haryana.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 3 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
30. Sunil Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Yog Raj Kaushik, R/o 522, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
31. Yatinder Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Prem Narain Kaushik,
R/o 522, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
32. Shiv Narain Sharma, S/o Pandit Sohan Lal,
Smt. Prakashwati, W/o Sh. Shiv Narain,
Both R/o H.No.849, Mohalla Mantola, Paharganj, New Delhi.
33. Smt. Beena Devi, W/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt & Ms. Rajni, D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt,
Both R/o 650, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
34. Anand Prakash Sharma & Gauri Shankar Sharma, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Asha ram,
R/o D75, Ayodhya Enclave, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi.
35. Ambey @ Amba Prasad, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram, R/o B9, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi.
36. Satish Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Kishan Kumar,
R/o DDA Flat No. 218, Suraj Apartments, Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi.
37. Arvind Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Birma Nand Bhardwaj,
Smt. Nisha Bhardwaj, W/o Late Sh. Sri Kishan Bhardwaj &
Balkishan Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Shiv Charan Dass,
All R/o 521, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
38. Govind Bhardwaj & Praveen Bhardwaj, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Ram Mehar Bhardwaj,
R/o 629, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
39. Atam Bhardwaj & Ashwani Bhardwaj, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Risal Bhardwaj,
R/o 371A/1, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
40. Naveen Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram Bhardwaj,
R/o 523, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
41. Harish Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Jai Sarup Bhardwaj,
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 4 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
R/o 359/1, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
42. Ramesh Bhardwaj, Rajesh Bhardwaj, Umesh Bhardwaj & Rakesh Bhardwaj,
All Ss/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal & Smt. Shamwati, D/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal,
All R/o H. No.511, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110107.
43. Sh. Rajesh kumar, Adopted Son of Late Sh. Shiv Prasad, R/o 524, Chirag Delhi,
Delhi & Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Devi Prasad, R/o E101, Saket, New Delhi.
44. Sh. Laxmi Dutt Pandey, Sh. Jagmohan Pandey, Sh. Satish Pandey & Sh. Jai
Prakash Pandey, All Ss/o Sh. Jagdish Chander, All R/o H.No. 517, Chirag Delhi.
45. Sh. Jai Bhagwan, S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh, R/o 522, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
46. Smt. Rachna Kaushik, W/o Late Sh. Virender Kaushik,
R/o H. No. 522, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
47. Sh. Mahender Kumar Bhardwaj, S/o Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o 44/A/4 Kalu Sarai, New Delhi.
48. Sh. Gajender Saroop & Sh. Devender Saroop, Both Ss/o late Sh. Manmohan
Saroop, R/o H. No. 369, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
49. Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Ramji Lal, Sh. Purshotum, S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram,
Sh. Premanand, S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram & Smt. Kanta, Wd/o Late Sh. Paras Ram,
All R/o 648, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
50. Smt. Gyantwati, Wd/o Late Sh. Sri Bhagwan Gaur, Sh. Om Prakash Gaur,
Sh. Vijay Prakash Gaur & Sh. Satya Prakash Gaur,
All Ss/o Late Sh. Sri Bhagwan Gaur, R/o H. No. 603, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
51. Sh. Subhash Bhardwaj, Anand Bhardwaj & Rajesh Bhardwaj,
All Ss/o Late Sh. Nihal Chand, R/o 675, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, Through LRs -
(i) Smt. Shyama Bhardwaj, (ii) Vivek Bhardwaj & (iii) Gaurav Bhardwaj
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 5 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
52. Sh. Bishan Saroop, Adopted S/o Late Sh. Ram Saroop,
R/o 515, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
53. Sh. Geeta Nand, S/o Late Sh. Faqir Chand,
R/o H.No.679, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
54. Sh. Harish Kumar & Sh. Jugal Kishore, Ss/o Late Sh. Nathu Ram,
R/o 434, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
55. Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Nihal Chand,
R/o 10/33, Badh Mohalla, Old Faridabad, Haryana.
56. Sh. Har Saroop Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Tula Ram
R/o H. No.673, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
57. Sh. Trilok Chand Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Har Saroop Bhardwaj,
R/o 755, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
58. Sh. Shiv Narain Bhardwaj, Sh. Raj Narain Bhardwaj,
Sh. Ram Avtar Bhardwaj, Yoginder Raj Bhardwaj & Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj,
All Ss/o Late Sh. Murari Lal bhardwaj, R/o H.No.819, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
59. Sh. Jai Bhagwan Bhardwaj, Sh. Siri Chand Bhardwaj & Sh. Rishi Raj Bhardwaj,
All Ss/o Late Sh. Kanwar Lal Bhardwaj, All R/o H.No.819, Chirag Delhi, Delhi.
60. Sh. Tribhuvan Bhardwaj, Sh. Rewati Raman Bhardwaj &
Chetan Prakash Bhardwaj, All Ss/o Late Sh. Lala Ram,
Sh. Ashwani bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Bhardwaj,
Purshottam Bhardwaj & Umesh Bhardwaj, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Paras Ram,
All R/o H.No.819, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
61. Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj, Sh. Ravinder Bhardwaj, Sh. Raj Kumar Bhardwaj &
Sh. Sushil Bhardwaj, Ss/o Shri Siri Kishan Bhardwaj,
R/o 433, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 6 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
62. Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj and Manoj Bhardwaj, Both Ss/o Shri Shiv Hari Bhardwaj,
R/o 433, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
63. Sh. Hari Kishan @ Om Prakash, R/o 433, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
64. Jai Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Chhajju Ram.
65. Smt. Lata Sharma, W/o Late Sh. Tilak Raj, R/o D1677, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
66. Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj &
Sh. Vinod Kumar bhardwaj, All Ss/o Late Shiv Kumar Bhardwaj,
R/o H. No. 321/R, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
67. Sh. Nihal Chand Bhardwaj, S/o Late Harsarup Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No.755, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
68. Sh. Gian Chand Bhardwaj & Sh. Naresh Chand Bhardwaj,
Both R/o H.No.755, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi,
Sh. Prem Chand Bhardwaj, R/o 404, Pkt. C, Sector A, vasant kunj, New Delhi &
Sh. Tara Chand Bhardwaj, R/o 359A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017
(All Ss/o Late Sh. Jai Saroop Bhardwaj).
69. Sh. Baldev Singh & Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Tarachand Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No.680B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
70. Sh. Mukesh Chand Pandey & Sh. Harender Kumar Pandey,
Both Ss/o Sh. Jagdish Chander, All R/o 517, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
71. Sh. Praveen Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Omkar Sarup
R/o H.No.369, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
72. Sh. Yash Gopal, S/o Late Sh. Shivraj Singh,
R/o H.No. 680A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
73. Sh. Naresh Bhardwaj & Sh. Praveen Bhardwaj,
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 7 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
Both Ss/o Late Sh. Hari Chand Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No.534, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017.
74. Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Ganpat Nath, R/o H.No.52, Burari, Delhi.
75. Sh. Dhurender Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Bhardwaj @ Khacheru,
At Present R/o 14256 NW Greenwood DR Portland, OR 97229, US and
Permanent R/o J220, Saket, New Delhi110017.
76. Sh. Satya Dev Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal @ Khacheru,
At Present R/o 10 Lulwater CT Durham, NC 27703 and
Permanent R/o J220, Saket, New Delhi110017.
77. Brahm Dev Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal @ Khacheru,
At Present R/o 5508 West 134th Place Hawthorne, CA 90250 and
Permanent R/o J220, Saket, New Delhi110017.
78. Sh. Shyam Bihari Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh,
R/o C21, East of Kailash, New Delhi110065.
79. Sh. Kishan Sarup, S/o Late Shanti Sarup, R/o 652, Leslie, Citi Coral Strem,
Illinois60188, USA, through General Attorney Govind Sarup Bhardwaj,
R/o C78, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
80. Sh. Govind Sarup Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Shanti Sarup,
R/o C78, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
81. Sh. Kapil Mohan & Sh. Vishnu Kant, Both Ss/o Late Sh. Narsi Bhagat,
R/o 512, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
82. Sh. Lakhpat Ram Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Niader Mal,
R/o H.No.371, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi 110017.
83. Smt. Darshan Devi, W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishore BNhardwaj,
Sh. Brijesh Bhardwaj, Sh. Akhilesh Bhardwaj & Sh. Parvesh Bhardwaj,
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 8 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
All Ss/o Late Sh. Ram Kishore Bhardwaj, R/o H.No.371/2, Chirag Delhi, Delhi.
84. Sh. Dharam Dev Bhardwaj, S/o Late Banwari Lal Bhardwaj @ Khacheru,
R/o J22, Saket, New Delhi110017.
85. Sh. Bhu Dev Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal @ Khacheru,
At Present R/o Indiana Lane, Tyngs Boro, MA 01879, USA and
Permanent R/o J220, Saket, New Delhi 110017.
86. Sh. Satsarup, S/o Late Sh. Gurcharan Sarup, r/o B45, Friends Colony West, Delhi.
87. Sh. Brijmohan Sarup, S/o Late Sh. Brahm Sarup,
R/o 74, Nav Shakti Sadan, Plot No. 27, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi82.
88. Sh. Shiv Mohan Sarup, S/o Late Sh. Brahm Sarup,
R/o S2/127, Sector8, Rohini, Delhi.
89. Sh. Surender Sarup, S/o Late Sh. Brham Sarup,
R/o 2008, Sector28, Faridabad, Haryana.
90. Sh. Parvash Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Bhagat Sarup, R/o M163, Vikas Puri, Delhi.
91. Sh. Jagmohan Sarup Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Anand Sarup ,
R/o 3518, Kuncha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
92. Sh. Bhagwan Sarup Sharma, S/o Late sh. Anand Sarup,
R/o 90/78, 2nd floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
93. Smt. Urmila Sharma, W/o Late Sh. Virender Sarup,
R/o 3515, Kuncha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
...... Interested Parties/Claimants Nos. 1 to 93
Petition Received on : 02.09.2006
Decision Reserved on : 28.07.2014
Date of Decision : 20.08.2014
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 9 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
JUDGMENT
(u/s 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) - The record is voluminous, facts and features are scattered at different places in the record. There are 93 interested persons (in brief the interested person is referred as IP and interested persons as IPs). There are rival claims and plea of the IPs visavis they make their rival respective claims. In order to reconcile the matrix of the case of each party, it requires to first introduce the subject matter, case of the parties broadly and then their specific plea, that is why, introduction is given. It is also for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetitions. The IPs no. 1 to 4 opposed the claim of all other IPs No. 5 to 93 and viceversa. Some of IPs No. 5 to 93 have also mentioned their conflicting interest with others amongst them. 1.2 (Subject matter) - A preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief Act, 1894) was issued on 28.11.2002 and declaration under section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 13.06.2006 for acquisition of 8 Bigha 6 Biswa of land of Village Bahapur and the land falls in field number field/ Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/2 (510) and field number / Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min (216) and it result into Award No. 24/DC(S)20052006 LAC No. 159/2011 Page 10 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
Village Bahapur, District South, announced on 06.06.2005 by the Land Acquisition Collector, South, Delhi. The amount of compensation along with other statutory benefits was also announced. However, the Land Acquisition Collector referred reference on 02.06.2006, in respect of field number / Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min (216) with the particulars of interested persons No. 1 to 17 (viz. IPs No. 1 to 17, shown at serial number 1 to 17 in the array of parties) and names of disputants, followed by amended memorandum on 16.12.2006 that interested persons mentioned are 1 to 24 and out of them, IPs No. 1 to 4 are the recorded owners of land and Sr. No. 5 to 24 are the objectors. In addition, an amount of Rs. 1,26,22,500.80p has also been sent on 02.09.2006 along with the reference under section 30/31 of the Act, 1894 in respect of land comprising field number / Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min (216), for which reference is to be decided. Therefore, the subject matter of reference is land measuring 2 bigha 16 biswas in field number / Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min (216) {hereinafter referred as the subject land or subject matter} under section 30/31 of the Act 1894.
1.3 (Interested Persons / Claimants / Objectors) - As mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph 1.2, that Land Acquisition Collector sent the reference with amended memorandum, narrating that persons at Sr. No. 1 to LAC No. 159/2011 Page 11 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
4 are recorded owners and Sr. No. 5 to 24 as objectors. Their names have been enumerated accordingly in the array of parties (out of them, IPs No. 1, 6 and IP51 died, their LRs were brought on record during pending of petition). During the pending of petition, many applications under order I Rule 10 CPC were filed, from time to time, and the same were heard, many of them were impleaded as added interested persons, their names are from Sr. No. 25 to 93, in the array of parties.
The said interested persons preferred their claims either in the form of applications or claim petitions or objections or reply to the application or petition of others by making their respective claims. They have designated them either as interested persons, objectors, petitioner or legal heir of their predecessorininterest. However, in order to reconcile their stand, all of them have been referred as interested persons by naming them with serial number as interested person, duly mentioned in the array of parties. It is also necessary to mention that in the pleadings, many of them had mentioned different numbers but on the basis of record, they will be referred by IP number as mentioned in the array of parties. In addition, the contents of claim or petition or reply also infer as if compensation is to be determined, whereas the reference to be answered is in respect of apportionment of share, therefore, features of determination of enhanced compensation is beyond the LAC No. 159/2011 Page 12 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
scope of refersence U/s 30/31 of Act, that does not require discussion. 2.1 (Broadly the case of IPs No. 1 to 4) - Before giving other specific details of their case, broadly, IPs No. 1 to 4 claim that they are recorded owner of subject land. As a matter of record, land measuring 28 bigha was purchased by IP No. 1 against sale consideration from the vendor Prithi Nath in the year 1956 by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1956, it was recorded/ mutated in the name of IP No. 1 and subsequently IPs No. 1 to 4 became the recorded owners, they prosecuted all kind of their rights under the law, in various forms either as Civil Writ, Suits, Petitions or dealing with the different departments. The land measuring 25 bigha 4 biswas was also acquired by another Award No. 2059, compensation therein was received by them. The subject land of 2 bighas 16 biswas is out of the land of 28 bighas purchased by IP No. 1. When the subject land was also acquired, the possession of land measuring 216 was received by the Government from them. They are entitled to receive the compensation of subject land. The claim of other IPs is wrong and misconceived, they are not entitled for the any compensation. 2.2 (Broadly the case of Other IPs No. 5 to 93) - Broadly, the case of other IPs is that land belongs to Shamlath Thok Jogian and Thok Brahmans LAC No. 159/2011 Page 13 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
equally as per revenue record. Thok Jogian are having share in the offerings / Chadawa / Tehbazari, etc., at the ratio of 1:3 (viz. 4 aana - 12 aana). The Thok Jogian and Thok Brahman are further divided into subsects. There are two subsects of Thok Jogian, viz. (i)Kanphada Jogi (i.e those pier their ears) [also known as Mahant, Senanath Jogi] and Mahant Prithi Nath Chela Mahant Pancham Nath Jogi belongs to Kanphada Jogi subsect. and
(ii)Gharbari Jogi (i.e those remained Bachelor) [also known as Gharbari Nihang Jogi, or Sanjogi], IP No. 6, 44 and 74 belongs to Gharbari Jogi.
The Thok Brahman are having four subsects, also known as Thulla Jogi/Pujari, namely (i) Thulla Rambaksh (IPs No. 41, 68, 78, belong to this subsect); (ii) Thulla Bahadur (IPs No. 7, 18, 37 to 40, 61 to 63 belong to this subsect); (iii) Thulla Jasraj (IPs No. 10, 20, 34, 35 and 50 belong to this subsect) and; (iv) Thulla Tansukh (IPs No. 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 22, 23, 25 to 31, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 65, besides IP No. 49 and 52 belong to this subsect). The other IPs who made their claim have not specified to which subsect they belong. None of such IP or individual belonging to Thok Jogian or Thok Brahman has any right to transfer the land which is belonging to Thok Shamlath Jogian and Brahman, since they are Pujari of Temple Shri Kalkaji Mandir, they are performing Puja Sewa, realizing Tehbazari, receiving offerings, etc., consequently, they are cobhumidar and coowners. The land LAC No. 159/2011 Page 14 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
cannot be sold or transferred, consequently the sale deed dated 24.11.1956 executed by Mahant Prithi Nath is forged, fabricated and cannot be acted upon, the land could not have been transferred by Mahant Prithi Nath to IP No. 1 Chet Ram Sharma. The mutation in revenue record or assessment to tax with MCD is result of collusion between IPs 1 to 4 and officials of such authorities. Therefore, IPs No. 1 to 4 are not entitled to receive compensation but it is to be disbursed to the other IPs. The IPs had no information of proceedings by LAC nor they were given notice nor they know about any publication of notifications.
In a Civil Suit No. 61/1969 under the title Mahant Prithi Nath Chela Mahant Pancham Nath Jogi (for declaration regulating bari of right of performing puja and of realizing offerings and tehbazari relating to the temple of Shree Kalkaji) it was decided on 01.02.1974 by the Court of Shri S.N. Kapoor, Civil Judge, Delhi (then as His Lordship was) and settled the share of IPs in performing the puja and including the land belonging to shamlat thok of jogian and brahmans and then in judgment dated 04.04.1973 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In another civil appeal Bawa Sandhia Nath vs. Mst. Dharam Kaur by judgment dated 30.11.1937 by the then District Judge Delhi held that land dedicated to the Mandir Shree Kalkaji can be used by the pujaris of the Mandir Shree Kalkaji and no pujari can withdraw from the LAC No. 159/2011 Page 15 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
dedication and appropriate it for his own purposes and no individual can convert it to any other use except for the benefit of temple. It was followed in Civil Suit No. 266/1952 Tula Ram vs. Prithvi Nath, suit for declaration and decided on 28.12.1955, restraining the said Prithvi Nath from selling even stone dust from the land attached to the temple (in respect land measuring 356 bighas 8 biswas, comprising Khasra no, 626 min, 630 min. 1202/627, 633 min, 624, 625, 626 min, 1201/627, 630 min, 633 min, and 1203/627). In another Civil Suit No. 451/2000 decided on 12.12.2007 and in its appeal RFA (OS) 3/2008, in judgment dated 27.01.2009 it has been held by hon'ble High Court of Delhi that land belonging to Mandir Shree Kalkaji cannot be sold by any one and sale deed executed by Satish Kumar, on behalf of Mahant Surender Nath, has been declared null and avoid. A civil suit is also pending in respect of sale deed by Mahant Prithi Nath in favour of IP No. 1. The sale deed, which is null and void, does not make entitle the IPs No. 1 to 4 to receive compensation. Land Acquisition Collector had not given any notice to other IPs before passing the award.
Now it requires to give the detail of case of the parties. 3.1 (Specific case of IPs No. 1 to 4) - The IPs No. 1 to 4's case is that IP No. 1 Chet Ram Sharma purchased 28 bigha of land, comprising Khasra No. LAC No. 159/2011 Page 16 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
621/2/3/2/2/1 situated at Village Bahapur, New Delhi by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1956 from Mahant Prithi Nath Chela Mahant Pancham Nath Jogi against consideration (the certified copy of sale deed is now Ex. IP14W1/11, its translated version is also on record) and the land was mutated in the name of IP No.1 (copy of mutation is now Ex. IP14W1/13). Further it was also entered/mentioned in the Jamabandi, at Sr. No. 19 in the name of IP No. 1 (copy of Jamabandi of 194950 is now Ex. IP14W1/12).
What happened, that land measuring 25 bigha 4 biswa (out of 28 bigha) of IP No. 1 was acquired by Award No. 2059, it result into two references to the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, one reference was under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (LAC No.20/1992) and another rerefence (LAC no. 120/1984) was under section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the reference petition under section 18 of the Act, one of the issue was, " what right, title and interest the petitioners have in the land in question", it was determined in favour of IPs No. 1 to 4, herein, by judgment dated 27.02.1993 and compensation was fixed in their favour (copy of such judgment is now Ex. IP14W1/22). The other reference under section 30/31 of the Act, under the petition No. 120/1984 was also determined by the Court of Additional District Judge by judgment dated 19.11.1990 read with supplementary order dated 28.11.1991 (both are now Ex. IP14W1/16 and LAC No. 159/2011 Page 17 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
Ex. IP14W1/17) in favour of Pt Chet Ram Sharma ( i.e. IP no.10 therein but IP No.1 herein). Since a suit No. 645/1980 was filed by IPs No. 1 to 4 to declare them coowners of land measuring 28 bigha, by judgment / order th dated 10.02.1981, each IPs No. 1 to 4 was declared having 1/4 share and consequently, in the petition LAC No. 120/1984, the compensation was held to be paid to all the IPs No. 1 to 4 by order dated 23.3.1992 (its copy is now Ex. IP14W1/18). The IPs No. 1 to 4 claims that they also initiated appropriate writs and legal action with regard to such land from time to time. Ultimately, the IPs No. 1 to 4 were disbursed compensation in petition LAC No. 120/1984 in respect of land measuring 25 bighas 4 biswas.
However, the said land acquired was 25 bigha 4 biswa, out of total land of 28 bigha purchased by IP No. 1. Therefore, the remaining land left was 2 bighas 16 biswas, thus application was filed, so that 2 bigha 16 biswa of remaining land is to be recorded, it was ordered by SDM/RA (South Delhi) to be corrected in the name of IP No. 1 (the record is now Ex. IP14W1/23), considering the demarcation at spot was also carried and possession of IPs No. 1 to 4 was confirmed in Nishandehi (now Ex. IP14W1/24) by the Revenue Officials. The mutation has also been effected in the name of IPs No. 1 to 4 vide mutation (now Ex. IP14W1/14). Therefore, IPs No. 1 to 4 are the recorded owners in possession of the LAC No. 159/2011 Page 18 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
subject land. Moreover, certain issues on the point of land use or ratable value were also confronted by the IPs No. 1 to 4, they filed appropriate applications, writs, suits, etc. (its copies are now Ex. IP14W1/32 to Ex. IP14W1/39), from time to time. None from any of the IPs No. 5 to 93 came forward or initiate any action in respect of such land of 28 bigha or any part thereof.
In respect of of subject land of 2 bigha 16 biswa the IPs No. 1 to 4 challenged acquisition proceedings of preliminary notification dated 28.11.2002 and declaration dated 13.06.2013 and certain directions were given by order dated 03.03.2005 (now Ex. IP14W1/5), while fixing the interim compensation with certain directions for release of amount, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The IPs No. 1 to 4 are the recorded owners of subject land, the reference petition has been sent, which also mentions that they are recorded owners in possession of the subject land. Possession of the subject land was taken by Government from the IPs No.1 to 4 on 28.10.2003. Moreover, in WP NO.407073/2006, before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is admitted by the LAC (South) in affidavit dated 17.5.2006 (Ex. IP14W1/40) accompanying Khasra girdawari (now Ex. IP14W1/41) about the possession and recorded ownership of IP No.1 to 4. Consequently, IPs No. 1 to 4 are entitled to receive the entire compensation amount of subject LAC No. 159/2011 Page 19 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
land and no other IP or added party has any right in the subject land to claim compensation nor it can be given them. Since IPs No. 1 to 4 are recorded owners, that is why they were rightly called by LAC (South) by notices to receive compensation (copies of notices are now Ex. IP14W1/6 to Ex. IP14W1/9).
The other IPs are contending their right in the subject land that the land belong to Shree Kalkaji Mandir or Mahant Prithi Nath had no right to sell the same, whereas as a matter of fact, such other IPs are neither owners nor coowners/Bhumidars nor they are recorded owners nor the land belongs to Shree Kalkaji Mandir nor revenue record reflects their name. Moreover, the Jamabandi (now Ex. IP14W1/12) demonstrate that lands have been sold time to time to various persons, even by Mahant Prithi Nath. The said IPs rely upon certain judgments, however, neither the same are applicable nor such judgments are pertaining to Khasra number in question. The claim of other IPs are not tenable and the same are to be dismissed.
3.2 (Specific case of IPs No. 6, 44 and 74) - They belong to Jogian Gharbari, they narrate their claim, which has already been reflected in paragraph 2.2, above. In addition, they request that they have share and right in the subject land, they deserve compensation. IPs No. 1 to 4 are outsiders, LAC No. 159/2011 Page 20 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
they are not pujari. They never owned or possessed the subject land, they have no right, title or interest in the property of Mandir Shree Kalkaji and land in question. Only the pujaris have right in the subject land, which is dedicated to Mandir Shree Kalkaji and no pujari has exclusive right to sell any portion of the land of Mandir Shree Kalkaji. Entire property of Mandir Shree Kalkaji is joint (Shamlath of Thok Jogian and Thok Brahmans) and it has been held in many judgments that property of Mandir Shree Kalkaji cannot to be sold in any manner to any person. Further IPs No. 44 and 74 make similar averment.
th IP No. 74 claims 1/6 share, out of 16 paisa and IP No. 44 claims 3 pies, out of 18 pies belonging to Gharbari Jogi.
3.3 (Specific case of IPs No. 41, 68 and 78) - They belong to Thulla Rambaksh subsect of Thok Brahman. They also reiterate their case, broadly reflected in paragraph 2.2, above, with further narration that Mahant Prithi Nath, Thok Jogian had no right to sell the subject land by way of sale deed or otherwise, he has not been owner or Bhumidar in the revenue record. IP No. th 41 has 1/160 share in the subject land. IP No. 78 claims 3 anna share out of th a rupee. IP No. 68 claims 1/5 share out of 6 pie, out of 1 anna. 3.4 (Specific case of IPs No. 37 40, 18 & 7 and 61 to 64) - They LAC No. 159/2011 Page 21 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
belong to Thulla Bhadur of sect Thok Brahman. They also reiterates their case which has already been broadly mentioned in paragraph 2.2, above. IPs No. 3740 and IPs No. 6164 submits their claim on the lines of facts mentioned in paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 above. IP No. 64 claims 9/22 pie in the compensation. IPs No. 61 and 62 each claim 9/4 pie and IP No. 63 claims 9/20 pie However other IPs No. 18 and 7 say that the land acquired is part of holding belonging to Shamlath Thok Jogian and Thok Brahman, they have half share each of land in Khasra No. 621 measuring 199 bigha 10 biswa in Village Bahapur (i.e. 99 bighas and 15 biswas each), out of which, land measuring 189 bigha 10 biswa have been Gair Mumkin Pahar and rest 10 bigha have been Rosli. It is further narrated that how from time to time certain land were acquired which was falling on Khasra No. 621. The entries in the revenue record in favour of IPs are result of fraud and the same is to be treated as nonest. Mahant Prithi Nath had sold the land measuring 28 bighas prior to its bifurcation vis a vis prior sale deed dated 3/4.11.1955. Out of land 99 bighas 15 biswas; land measuring 403 in the name of Ram Phal, thus remaining land of 9512 belongs to Thok Jogian but 60 bighas was sold by predecessorininterest including subject land. The subject land was covered under the land for which compensation has already been disbursed, LAC No. 159/2011 Page 22 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
consequently IPs No. 1 to 4 have no right in the compensation. The land belongs to Thok Brahmans and no one else is entitled for apportionment except all named as IP No. 7 and IP No. 18 equally.
Whereas the other IPs, particularly IPs No. 5, 6, 12, 15, 17, 16,19 , 22 and 41 have opposed the claim of IPs No. 7 and 18 and viceversa. 3.5 (Specific case of IPs No. 10, 20, 34, 35 and 50) - These five IPs belong to subsect Thulla Jasraj of Thok Brahman. Their case is alike others, on the pattern of facts narrated in paragraph 2.2, above visavis the sale deed executed by Mahant Prithi Nath is bad in law, it is collusive and illegal sale deed. They have also claim their ratio in the compensation on the basis of shares descending from their predecessorininterest. 3.6 (Specific case of IPs No. 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 22, 23, 25 to 31, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50 and 65, besides IPs No. 47 and 52) - Mandir Shree Kalkaji was having 350 bigha land and the subject land is part of that land, the land acquired belongs to Mandir Shree Kalkaji / Shamlath Thok Jogian and Thok Brahman. These IPs belong to Thulla Tansukh and they lay their claim on the basis of 12 anna share. They reiterate the averment referred in paragraph 2.2, above. Further, Mahant Prithi Nath Jogian was not LAC No. 159/2011 Page 23 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
representing Gharbari Jogis, therefore, he had no right, title or interest or transfer or dispose off the share of other sects gharbari Jogis without obtaining the consent of them. IPs No. 1 to 4 are outsiders, as they have no right of their sewa puja or they have no interest in the subject land, they are neither pujari nor cobhumidars of acquired land but they are land grabber. IP no.1 to 4 are not entitled for compensation, nor any benefit accrued to them as land of temple cannot be sold to any person, IP No. 1 to 4 themselves are liable to suffer of the sale transaction on the principle of Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware). They also calculate their ratio of claim as mentioned in their petition or affidavit.
3.7 (Specific case of other IPs No. 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 76 and 81) - They have also filed their affidavits / claim, making averments about the facts mentioned in paragraph 2.2, above visavis bifurcating their share, which varies as per strength of members of the family. Otherwise, they have not mentioned to which subsect of Thok Jogian or Thok Brahman they belong. Their case / claim also rest upon the fact that land belongs to Thok Jogian and Thok Brahman jointly and IP no.12,15 and 17 also claims that the land is of Mandir Shree Kalkaji.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 24 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
Issues
4. On 14.11.2007 from the pleadings / rival petitions & record of interested persons, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor :
1. To what share in compensation each of the IPs of the land in question is entitled to ? Onus on IPs
2. Relief.
Evidence
5. Since onus to prove the issues were on IPs, therefore, the case was put to evidence of IPs and at the stage of evidence, not only many affidavits were filed by many of the interested persons but also by others who are not in the array of interested persons but either related to interested persons or otherwise. Ultimately, IP No. 2 namely IP14W1 Shri B.D. Sharma (son of IP No. 1 Chet Ram) stepped into the witness box for IPs No. 1 to 4 (he was cross examined by other IPs) and then they closed their evidence. By order dated 28.11.2007 by Ld. Predecessor, it was directed that in the reference petition under section 30/31 of the Act, 1894, for deciding the claim of IPs the evidence is to be lead by them as none of IP shall be allowed to take advantage and benefit of evidence of other IP or IPs, therefore, all the IPs were given opportunity to lead evidence. Thence, IPs No. 7 and 18 produced IP718W1 Shri Sukh Lal (IP No. 7) in the witness LAC No. 159/2011 Page 25 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
box, who was cross examined not only by IP no.1 to 4 but also by other remaining IPs. The remaining two witnesses appeared are for IP no.32, namely IP32/W1 Shiv Narain Sharma and IP32/W2 Shri Keshav Chand. IP No. 22 Mahesh Kumar Bhardwaj opted to lead evidence, he stepped into the witness box, his examinationinchief was recorded partly, then he never opted to come into the witness box for his further examination.
Some of the IPs or others had filed their affidavits but it was submitted on 11.7.2009, which was also recorded in the proceedings that their claim rest upon judicial pronouncement and same is to be read for determination of their claim. Therefore, the case was put to final arguments. Final Hearing
6. The final hearing is blend of brief synopsis with oral arguments supplemented with case law. The appearance caused is recorded as follows : •Shri Rajesh Yadav, with Shri Inder Singh, Shri Samit Khosla, Advocates for IPs No. 1 to 4.
•Shri Basant Gupta, Advocate for IPs No. 12, 15 and 17. •Shri R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for IPs No. 16 (himself), 19 and 22. •Shri Tara Chand Yogi, Advocate for IPs No. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 25 to 31, 37, 39, 40, 43, 49, 50 and 52.
•Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for IP No. 32.
•IP No. 41 and some other IPs in person.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 26 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
7.1. Shri Rajesh Yadav with Shri Inder Singh, Shri Samit Khosla, Advocates for IPs No. 1 to 4 contended on the basis of facts, features, documentary record, already referred in paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1 above. The contentions are also based on law laid down in precedent or in case, the same will be mentioned hereinafter. It does not require to reproduce the entire case of IP no.1 to 4 here. It is submitted that IP No. 1 had purchased the land against consideration by registered sale deed in 1956, possession was given to him and it was mutated in his name long back in 1962, jamabandi also reflects his name. Later on on name of IPs No. 1 to 4 was mutated. No adverse inference can be drawn in respect of sale deed in favour of IP no.1 or in respect of jamabandi in their favour. There is also presumption of revenue entries in favour of IPs No. 1 to 4. It was never challenged by any other IPs. One part of land measuring 2504 was acquired by another award, compensation to also disbursed. However, the other IPs No. 5 to 24 or added parties no. 25 to 93 claim the compensation of subject land, which was acquired from IPss No. 1 to 4. The IPs were in settled possession of the subject land, it was subject to taxes by house tax department of MCD and after acquisition, it was handed over to government by them. The said IPs are setting up plea of ownership of Shamlat Thok Jogian and Thok Brahamans or of Mandir Shree Kalkaji. However, there is no revenue record produced or LAC No. 159/2011 Page 27 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
proved which may reflect that land was belonging to Temple Shree Kalkaji. It is claimed that Mahant Prithi Nath could not sell the land, whereas Jamabandi (Ex P14/12) mentions entries/names of many persons, whom land was transferred. Otherwise, it was never challenged before any Civil Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate on this issues but before the Reference Court, whose jurisdiction is limited to decide the reference assigned and to adjudicate the issues which falls within the domain of Civil Court. This plea cannot be raised after such a long period. The other IPs have relied upon many judgments, however, neither they pertain to subject land nor their ratio applies to issue in question. Therefore, IPs no.1 to 4 were recorded owner/coowners, they were in settled possession and possession was given to Government by them. They (IPs no. 1 to 4) are exclusively entitled receive the compensation equally.
Other IPs No. 5 to 24 or added party 25 to 93 have no right in the compensation. In fact during pending of reference petition in court, number of application under order I Rule 10 CPC were filed, the IPs No. 1 to 4 gave the consent to make them party, however, neither it creates any right in their favour or it waives off the rights of the IPs No. 1 to 4. The added parties no. 25 to 93 do not fall in the category of interested person as defined under the Land Acquisition Act nor they were entitled to be impleaded as a LAC No. 159/2011 Page 28 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
party to reference petition in the Reference Court. The course would have been that they should request the Land Acquisition Collector and who after considering it, may refer their name, then they could be referred as interested party. Otherwise, they have no option to come to Reference Court directly but to knock the door of Civil Court for appropriate relief. The IPs No. 1 to 4 derives reasons from the cases :
1. Ram Shankar vs. Mukhtiare 135 (2006) DLT 577 - after examining the provisions of DLR Act, held, we are satisfied that the question relevant for the purposes of payment of compensation for acquisition of the land in the instant case would have to be answered with reference to the records of the case which would indicate who were the Bhumidars and who were in possession of the land in question. There can be no manner of doubt, as rightly found by the Ld. Additional District Judge, that in the instant case of Kishori and Mukhtiare were the declared Bhumidars and remained so till the land was acquired by the Government in the year 197374. Also, the possession was taken from them. It is they who would be entitled to be paid compensation.
2. Kalawati vs. UOI 157 (2009) DLT 112 - it was held that in the fact of this case, where the appellant was not concerned with the land after her marriage, it is is the respondents no. 2 to 4 who remained in cultivatory possession thereof and became Bhumidars under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Even the land stands mutated in their name. It is this Act which governs the field and on the basis of rights accrued to the persons in possession of the land under this Act that the compensation payable to them would be determined. There is no concept of 'ownership' over the land in the scheme of the Land Reforms Act. The compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is payable to the Bhumidars declared as such under the Land Reforms Act. On that reckoning, it is the respondents who would be entitled to compensation to the exclusion of the appellant.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 29 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
3. Shri Chand vs. Land Acquisition Collector 118 (2005) DLT 320 - it is held that it is also true that the notification under section 4 for acquisition of land was issued on 22nd August, 2001 and the award was passed on 25th November, 2003. The petitioner filed the application before the Collector only on 10th February, 2004 for all this averred in the counter affidavit by his father that for years he had severed all relations with his family, still he took no steps before any Court of a competent jurisdiction to enforce his claim of being a coparcener in the property in question. These facts were have only noticed for the purpose of illustrating the conduct of the petitioner for all this period which by itself would be a ground for denying him any equitable relief in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Gurbaksh Singh vs. Nikka Singh AIR 1963 SC 1917 - it is held that Section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act reads : "Entries in records ofrights or in annual records, except entries made in annual records by patwaris is under clause (a) of Section 35 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent record otherwise than by (a) making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred; (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties.
Section 44 says that an entry made in a recordofrights in accordance with the provisions of that Chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of Section 37(a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act were satisfied. If so, there is a presumption that the later entry was correct. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the said presumption.
5. Regal Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 42 (1990) DLT 44 - it is held that under sections 155 and 156 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the Gaon Panchayat has also been entrusted with the LAC No. 159/2011 Page 30 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
management, functions and duties of the maintenance and development of abadi sites and village communications and the consolidation of holdings, amongst others. Therefore, the certificate issued by the village Pardhan is in the nature of an entry in a record which is made by him as a public servant in the discharge of his official duties.
All these documents are not hearsay evidence, the only objection raised about the admissibility of evidence of such document, but are relevant pieces of evidence under section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as these documents clearly shows that the entries in these documents have been made by responsible officers in due discharge of their official duties and such documents also throw light on the question whether or not the land in dispute falls within the extended abadi. Therefore, the documents are clearly relevant and admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, since these documents are coming from the responsible officers of the department, their probative value of evidence also cannot be under estimated.
6. Premwati vs. Union of India 2009 (5) AD (Delhi) 779 - it is held that name of the appellants were entered in the revenue record in Jamabandi / Khasra Girdawari in 1976, which continued even thereafter as per the documents produced by the appellants .....Further, the appellants have also produced documents which show that they have been regularly paying house tax, income tax, sales tax, commercial electricity bills, residential electricity bills, commercial water bills, residential water bills and development charges to the MCD and DESU from 1976 to 2003. All these documents cannot be wished away as they would at least prove the settled possession of the appellants and their predecessorininterest Smt. Dhan Kaur. Thus, even if there is no sale deed in favour of Smt. Dhan Kaur, on the basis of which she could establish her ownership in the land, her interest in the land remained, in view of the possessory rights of a land which is agricultural land and covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
7. Jai Kishan vs. Union of India 2006 (129) DLT 745 - it is held that the petitioner had produced the records before the authorities and have LAC No. 159/2011 Page 31 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
even annexed to the writ petition khataoni consolidation wherein he had been recorded as owner / bhumidar to the extent of his 1/4 th share. Unless the exception was shown, a recorded bhumidar would normally be entitled to receive compensation as per the revenue records. In fact, in preference to all others, a recorded bhumidar has a legal right to receive the compensation. Judgment of this court in the case of Sri Chand (Supra) clearly enunciates this principle.
8. Md. Noorul Hoda vs. Bibi Raifunnisa (1996) 7 SCC 767 - it is held that when the plaintiff seeks to establish his title to the property which cannot be established without avoiding the decree or an instrument that stands as an insurmountable obstacle in his way which otherwise binds him, though not a party, the plaintiff necessarily has to seek a declaration and have that decree, instrument or contract cancelled or set aside or rescinded. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 regulates suits for cancellation of an instrument which lays down that any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable and who has a reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause hi serious injury can sue to it and order it to be delivered or cancelled. It would thus be clear that the word 'person' in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is wide enough to encompass a person seeking derivative title from his seller. It would, therefore, be clear that if he seeks avoidance of the instrument, decree or contract and seeks a declaration to have the decrees set aside or cancelled he is necessarily bound to lay the suit within three years form the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the decree set aside, first became known to him. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. Dhuandhar Parsad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University (2001) 6 SCC 534 - it is held that the expression "void and voidable" have been the subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by courts. The expression "void" has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, abinitio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g may be LAC No. 159/2011 Page 32 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
transaction against a minor without being represented by an next friend. Such a transaction is a good transaction against the whole world. So far as the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be which is not a nullity but for avoiding the same a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided e.g if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given, a transaction becomes void from the very beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void be would be obviously voidable.
10. Prem Singh vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353 it is held that limitation is a statute of repose. In ordinarily bars a remedy, but does not extinguish a right. The only exception to the said rule is to be found in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that at the determination of the period prescribed thereby, limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. If the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed in not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed. Thus, it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, respondent no. 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 33 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
11. Hameed Joharan (dead) vs. Abdul Salam (dead) by LRs (2001) 7 SCC 573 - it is held that Law Courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity - the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of right.
12. Dharambir vs. Financial Commissioner (L.P.A No. 1941/2011 of Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided on 18.11.2011) - it is held that the entries made in recordsofrights in accordance with law for the time being in force shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved and presumption of truth attaches to the jamabandi. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat way back in 1964. It is also held that the appellants did not challenge any entry for a long i.e for more than 46 years, and now they shall be debarred from challenging the same in view of the principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. Ld. counsel for appellant also raised an argument that there is no delay and latches in challenging the entries in revenue record. Admittedly, the challenge to the entries in the jamabandies is being made after 46 years of sanction of mutation on 19.08.1964 which stands incorporated in subsequent jamabandi. The entries in the jamabandi i.e record of right can be challenged under section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that there is no delay and latches in the filing of title suit.
13. Balbir Singh vs. ADM (Revenue) 57 (1995) DLT 547 it is held that Section 85 of the Land Reforms Act has the effect of bestowing certain rights, automatically on such a person, who retains possession, without title, in case a suit is not brought within the prescribed period of limitation. Where land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar, the person automatically acquires rights as a Bhumidar, and where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of Gaon Sabha, such a person acquires right of an Asami. The narration of the aforementioned various provisions of the Act and the Rules is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the actual possession on the spot is the basis of the LAC No. 159/2011 Page 34 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
rights and liabilities under the Act which is of utmost importance and the provisions of the Act do enjoin upon the authorities under the Act a duty to maintain the record of rights as per the actual position existing on the spot. There is no reason why with respect to certain categories of land, the same procedure be not followed.
14. Ram Prakash Agarwal vs. Gopi Krishan (2013) 11 SCC 296 - it is held that the said case is required to be examined from another angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did not make any application either under section 18 or Section 30 of the Act, 1894 to the Land Acquisition Collector. 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 be determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector. It is evident from the above that a person who has not made an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, for making a reference under section 18 or 30 of the Act 1894 cannot get himself impleaded directly before the reference Court.
15. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Service, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136 - it is held that indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. Furthermore, an issue as to lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The findings of a court or tribunal become irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of a party should not equally be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. A decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for LAC No. 159/2011 Page 35 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
adjudication of rights, the remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the common law court has no jurisdiction. The law does not permit any Court / tribunal / authority / forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever in case such an authority does not have jurisdiction on the subjectmatter.
16. Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan (1955) 1 SCR 117 - it is held that it is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary of territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.
7.2. Shri Basant Gupta, Advocate for IPs No. 12, 15 and 17 - Ld. Counsel contends that Mandir Shree Kalkaji is situated on Mauza Behapur, on an area of 356 bighas 8 biswas, which includes installing of small stalls at the time of Melas. The Mandir Shree Kalkaji was got reconstructed and renovated by Raja Kedar Nath, who gifted a large piece of land to the priest , the present pujaris are descendants of original pujaris. The land is jointly owned by pujaris of the temple consisting Brahmans and Jogis. Further submissions are, what has been compiled in paragraph 2.2 and 3.7, above. They also rely upon :
(i) Kapoor Chand vs. Ganesh Dutt AIR 1993 SCC 1145 - suit for declaration was filed by appellant as representative of worshipper to LAC No. 159/2011 Page 36 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
declare that sale deed of selling the shop by respondent to vendee was null and void since suit shop belongs to temple and respondent had no right to sell the shop, it was held that suit was maintainable and matter was remitted back for consideration 'whether suit shop was is also endowed to the deity'?
(ii) Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee vs. Charity Commissioner Gujarat State AIR 1995 SCC 167 - While dealing with whether temple (Kalkika Mataji Temple on Paragadh Hill near champaner town Gujrat) is a public or private trust vis a vis proof of dedication, under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950, it was held that there is government record showing name of deity, evidence of place to be pilgrimage center and Hindu community offering prayers as of right, hence, this is public trust.
(iii)Bhagauti Prasad Khetan vs. Laxminathji Maharaj AIR 1985 Allahabad 228 - the suit for declaration was filed by worshipers as next friend of deity and it was held not only such suit is maintainable but also alienation of property of Idol by Shebait, without legal necessity and for benefit of Idol, is invalid and ineffective.
It is submitted that IPs No. 1 to 4 are not entitled for any compensation under any circumstances,.
7.3 Shri R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for IPs no. 16 (himself), 19 and 22 The IPs No. 16, 19 and 22 requests that land belongs to Thok Brahamans and Thok Jogi from ancient time, Mandir Shree Kalkaji is on such land. While LAC No. 159/2011 Page 37 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
referring facts and features of their case (as mentioned in para 2.2 and 3.6, above), it is submitted that land belonging jointly to Thok Brahamans and Thok Jogian cannot be sold or disposed off by an individual pujari. Mahant Prithi Nath had no right or authority to sell the land and any transaction if entered by any one, it is null, void and inoperative. Moreover, the sale deed relied upon is vague, forged and document of collusion, it cannot be acted upon. It is no sale deed in the eyes of law, consequently the revenue record is also result of collusion. It was open land, the IPs No. 1 to 4 cannot claim possession thereon nor they handed over it to the Govt. Therefore, IPs No. 1 to 4 are not entitled to receive compensation. The existence of Temple Shree Kalkaji can be traced in history. Ld Counsel relies upon certain record of summary of documents in SLP © 3245253/2013 (Kalkaji Mandir Voikreta Sangathan vs. Piyush Josi and other) and affidavit of January 2014 of Shri Dharender Singh, SDM Kalkaji, Delhi that land of village Bahapur District South East constitute of Khasra No. 626, 627 and 633. Temple Shree Kalkaji is situated in Khasra No. 626. As per Revenue record of the year 1865, 1880,190809,194950 till date the title of the ownership of said khasra is in the name of Shamlat Thok Brahmans (½) and Jogians (½). Further, while relying upon cases referred in paragraph 2.2., above, further reliance is placed on : LAC No. 159/2011 Page 38 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
(a)Balbir Singh vs. Pehlad AIR 1988 Delhi 312 - suit for permanent injunction was filed for restraining the cobhumidar from interfering with the possession of plaintiff, in specific khasra number by mentioning that the land was orally partitioned, however, the suit was dismissed because of sale deed was vague as no specific khasra number or areas therein were indicated nor the mutual partition was mentioned.
(b)Gowrishankar vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust 1996 (I) AD SC 440 held that it is settled law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court whether superior or inferior it can be challenged in any court even in Collateral proceedings.
7.4 Shri Tara Chand Yogi, Advocate for IPs No. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 25 to 31, 37, 39, 40, 43, 49, 50 and 52, Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for IP No. 32 and IPs No. 41, 68 (filed their similar written submissions) and other IPs adopt and endorse the arguments of IPs, referred in paragraph 7.2 and 7.3., above.
FINDINGS 8.1 The rival contentions are assessed, in the light of facts and features of the case, oral and documentary evidence lead, statutory LAC No. 159/2011 Page 39 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
provisions of law and law laid down in precedent or reasons given in the cases presented.
8.2 It is apparent there are total five witnesses stepped into witness box, out of them one witness IP No. 2 (is for IPs No. 1 to 4), IP no. 7 (is for IPs No. 18 and 7), IP No. 32 and another witness is for IP No. 32. However, IP No. 22 also stepped into box for himself but did not render his examination in chief completely, therefore, for want to leading complete examination in chief vis a vis opportunity to others to cross examination him, partly recorded statement of IP No.22 will not be read as evidence. The case of other IPs will be considered, as contended by them, in view of judgments presented as well as evidence on record or the case put by IPs while cross examining the witnesses. With this background, now issues are taken one by one.
8. Issue No. 1 To what share in compensation each of the IPs of the land in question is entitled to ? Onus on IPs Issue No. 1 is taken and it is apparent from the issue that onus lies on each interested person to establish it. The IPs No. 1 to 4 are claiming entire compensation while opposing the claim of others, whereas other IPs are denying the rights, interest and claim of IPs No. 1 to 4 and they make LAC No. 159/2011 Page 40 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
claim for themselves at ratio mentioned in the petitions/objections/ application. Who proved the issue/claim?
Since all are making claim of ownership or proprietors rights or possession rights, therefore, in order to trace its proof, there are certain off shoots of issue no1, like who is owner(s) or recorded owner(s) of the subject land? Who was in possession of the land or who handed over the possession to Collector? In case there is revenue record and also sale deed, which is to preferred in the eventuality they are in different name? Whether reference court may open the question that Mahant Prithi Nath had no authority to sell and execute the sale deed in favour of IP No. 1, when civil suit is pending in Civil Court? What is the criteria for apportionment of awarded compensation by Reference Court?
8.5. Witness IP14W1 on one side and witness IP718W1, on the other side, in their statement talks about Jamabandi of 194950, former proved it as Ex P14W1/12, but the latter talked of translated version, it has been tendered as MarkB, without proof of original, claiming that mutation was carried in his name in 1969 after death of his father, but he could not establish the same despite opportunity during cross examination. As per Jamabandi (Ex. P14W1/12), originally there was total land of 18910 LAC No. 159/2011 Page 41 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
belonging to Thok Brahamans and Thok Jogian equally, but name of Mandir Shree Kalkaji does not find mention. The IPs No. 5 to 93 does not dispute about share in offerings, tehbazari etc. in the ratio of 3:1 respectively of Thok Jogian and Thok Branhamans. There are total 45 mutation/entries/corrections in Jamabandi from 31.5.1952 till subject land was acquired. The mutations at Sr. No. 7, 11, 19 and 23 (from 30.04.1952 to 12.03.1968) are pertaining to transfers made by Mahant Prithi Nath, the entry at Sr. No. 19 is in respect of IP no.1 Chet Ram Sharma. However, IPs No. 1 to 4 have also proved sale deed (Ex. P14W1/11) in favour of IP No.1, the sale deed recites the Khasra number, field number and area specifically. IPs No. 1 to 4 claims their rights created by sale deed, but others deny sale deed as Mahant Prithi Nath had no right to sell the land. What emerged from the statement and record tendered by IP14W1 is that sale of land was also effected by Mahant Prithi Nath in favour of others, even prior to sale of a piece of land in favour of IP No. 1.The witness/IP No. 7 in his evidence claims that land was mutated in his name in 1969 duly entered in jamabandi (Mark B), however, he could not prove it. In case, it was mutated in his name, it means they were keeping track of revenue record, they were knowing about mutations and the sales effected by Mahant Prithi Nath in favour of IP No. 1 or earlier in favour of others. There is no evidence, whether any legal action was initiated by such LAC No. 159/2011 Page 42 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
IPs in respect of other sale deeds effected by Mahant Prithi Nath.
The Civil Suit No. 61/1969 of Mahant Prithi Nath Chela Mahant Pancham Nath Jogi (supra) decided on 01.02.1974 was in respect of declaration regulating bari/turn of right of performing puja and of realizing offerings and tehbazari relating to the temple Shree Kalkaji and it was not in respect of land in question. The Civil Suit No. 266/1952 Tula Ram vs. Prithvi Nath, suit for declaration and decided on 28.12.1955, restraining the said Prithvi Nath from selling even stone dust from the land attached to the temple (qua land measuring 356 bighas 8 biswas, comprising Khasra no, 626 min, 630 min. 1202/627, 633 min, 624, 625, 626 min, 1201/627, 630 min, 633 min, and 1203/627) was in respect of interse dispute of Pujaris, but not in respect of subject land or outsiders. The other record {of Suit No. 451/2000 decided on 12.12.2007 and in its appeal RFA (OS) 3/2008, decided on 27.01.2009 by hon'ble High Court of Delhi} is not produced before this court that land belonging to Mandir Shree Kalkaji cannot be sold by any one and sale deed executed by Satish Kumar, on behalf of Mahant Surender Nath, has been declared null and avoid. Otherwise, the record of Jamabandi proved in this case does not mention of land belonging to Mandir Shree Kalkaji.
It is necessary to mention here that contention of the parties are around various issues, like sale deed is forged or fabricated or other LAC No. 159/2011 Page 43 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
record was got prepared under collusion. The present court is dealing and adjudicating reference referred under section 30/31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being Reference Court, having scope within the reference to decide apportionment of awarded compensation and not for adjudicating the general issues of the parties. It is not a civil suit before this court to declare the sale deed null and void, however, IPs No. 5 to 93 request to treat sale deed (Ex. IP14W1/11) as null and void. Whereas it was submitted that a civil suit is pending to get the sale deed declared as null and void. There is no legal presumption to treat the sale deed as null and void, and that is why some of IPs have filed a civil suit for declaration, which is stated to be still pending. However, there are legal presumption about revenue record maintained as held in Dharambir Singh case (supra) and Balbir Singh case (Supra), which goes in favour of IPs No. 1 to 4. Hence, IPs No. 1to 4 are recorded owner/co owner/bhumidar, their names also find mention at Sr. No.31 r/w at Sr. No. 43 and 44 in Jamabandi (Ex. P14W1/12).
8.6. There are juxtaposition claim with regard to possession, as on the one side IPs No. 14 claim the possession of subject land with them and on the other side of IPs, they claim it is an open land and possession is with the Mandir Shree Kalakaji. There are oral version as well as documentary LAC No. 159/2011 Page 44 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
record. The documentary record is in the form of demarcation report dated 17.9.1989 (Ex. PW1/24), Khasra Girdwari (Ex. P14W1/41), affidavit dated 17.5.2006 (Ex P14W1/40, filed in WP(C) No. 4070/2006) of Shri A.K. Singh, Collector/ADM South Delhi accompanying Khasra Girdwari (Ex P14W1/41. The Khasra Girdwari (Ex. PW14W1/41) (of 24.01.04 to 24.3.2005) and Khasra Girdwari (Ex. PW14W1/41) (of 26.10.04 to 16.3.2006) demonstrate name and possession of subject land 216 with IPs No. I4. The demarcation report (Ex. PW1/24) and Khasra Girdwari (Ex. PW1/41), contain relevant features, they are taken for discussion. The demarcation report was prepared in Case No. 285/1989, it depicts that land measuring 216 biswas in possession of applicant, it was identified and demarcated, moreover on its southern side possession of Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahaman was found, which is on land measuring 510. In Khasra Girdwari (Ex. P14W1/41), there are two entries, the first entry is in respect of subject land of 216 (of Khasra No. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min) in favour of IPs No. 1 to 4 and another entry is in respect of land 010 (of khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/2) in favour of Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahamans. To say, the subject land was in possession of IPs No. 1 to 4 and not in possession of any of other IPs. In addition, IPs No. 16, 19, 22, during arguments, placed reliance on report in Suit No. 268/2003, whereby the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi called status report from LAC No. 159/2011 Page 45 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
SDM Kalkaji, who reported about khasra no. 626min, 1202/627, 634min, 624, 625, 1201/627 and 1203/607 vis a vis land acquired therein and the land of 8307 was left, belonging to Shamlat Thok Bramans and Thok Jogian, each having half share as per jamabandi; there is no ownership of Mandir Shree Kalkaji. This feature, again, does not support the case of IPs No. 5 to 93.
There is no scope before reference court to reopen the case whether Mahant Prithi Nath had lacked authority to execute sale deed, but the record maintained in the form of jamabandi, khasra girdawari is to be accepted in favour of IPs No. 1 to 4. The sale deed and the Jamabandi do not contradict each other, as subsequent development were recorded in the form of mutations. The case laws presented by IPs No. 1 to 4 applies in their favour.
8.7 Since, IPs no. 1 to 4 were in possession of subject land, therefore, the testimony witness/P14W1 stand proved that possession was handed over to Collector by them. There is no other evidence by other IPs to prove that land being open was not in possession of IPs No. 1 to 4 or land was handed over to Collector by such IPs, who are other than IPs No. 1 to 4. The evidence of IP No. 32 through his witnesses is on the aspect to which sect he belongs and to make/show claim of his ratio while descending from LAC No. 159/2011 Page 46 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
his predecessor in interest.
8.8. It is settled law that when there are claimants seeking apportionment of their claim, under section 30 of the Act, 1894, they are required to establish title affirmatively and in the absence of proof of title, they are required to prove effective occupation or possession. In case either of it is not established, one can not get share in the compensation. The prima facie title to the compensation is with the person/party, who is in the sole and exclusive possession of the lands at the time of its acquisition by the Government and onus is lies on the party claiming that he has a better title to such compensation to prove such title.
The IPs No. 1 to 4 has established the standard/criteria of recorded owners in possession of subject land and possession was handed over by them to the Government. They have proved their claim and issue no.1 in their favour, IPs No. 1 to 4 are entitled for compensation amount equally. The petition/claim of IPs No. 1 to 4 is allowed. The compensation amount is to be apportioned IPs No. 1 to 4 equally.
The other petitions/objections/claims of others IPs No. 5 to 93 could not prove issue no.1 in their favour, therefore, their claims are dismissed. Accordingly, issue no.1 and offshoots of issue no.1 stand LAC No. 159/2011 Page 47 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
answered.
8.10 Issue No. 2 -
Relief In view of findings given on issue no.1 above , the petition/claim of IPs No. 1 to 4 is allowed. The compensation amount with accrued interest is to be apportioned amongst IPs No. 1 to 4 equally.
The other petitions/objections/claims of others IPs No. 5 to 93 are dismissed. However, both the parties will bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
9. Accordingly, the reference under section 30/31 of the Act, 1894 stand answered. Copy of this judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector for information and action.
Announced in the open Court (INDER JEET SINGH)
on 29 Shravana, Saka 1936
th
Addl. District Judge02 (South), Saket
New Delhi / 20.08.2014
N
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 48 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
LAC No. 159/2014
20.08.2014
Present: Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for IPs No. 1 to 4.
Shri Basant Gupta, Counsel for IPs No. 12, 15 and 17.
Proxy counsel for Shri R. K. Bhardwaj, Counsel for IPs No. 16, 19 and 22.
Proxy counsel for Shri Tara Chand Yogi, Counsel for IPs No.5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 25 to 31, 37, 39, 40, 43, 49, 50 and 52.
Proxy Counsel for Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for IP No.32. IP No. 41 and some other IPs in person. IPs No. 34 and 39 were stated to be dead, however, no application or other allied feature with regard to their death has been brought on record.
Officials of LAC.
Vide separate judgment announced today, the petition / claim of IP no.1 to 4 is allowed. The compensation amount with accrued interest is to be apportioned amongst IP no.1 to 4 equally.
The other petitions / objections / claims of others IPs no. 5 to 93 are dismissed. However, both the parties will bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Accordingly, reference under section 30/31 of the Act, 1894 stand answered. Copy of this judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector for information and action.
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 49 of 48 UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
Separate proceedings be recorded for recall of amount and its disbursement.
File be consigned to record room.
(It is necessary to record that record is voluminous, there are 93 interested persons. In addition, the record is in four volumes but from the beginning, it has not been maintained properly, apparently by the then staff. It is also reflected that the ministerial staff attached to the Land Acquisition cases, need special attention/training, so that record is not to be kept in haphazard manner; it took many hours for the Presiding Officer to go through the same, besides a lot of inconvenience while perusing the record).
(Inder Jeet Singh)
ADJ02 (South), Saket
N New Delhi / 20.08.2014
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 50 of 48
UOI vs. Chet Ram & Ors.
LAC No. 159/2011
20.08.2014
Present: Counsel for IPs No. 1 to 4.
Officials of LAC.
Vide separate judgment dated 20.08.2014 in reference petition under section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the IPs No. 1 to 4 have been held entitled for apportionment of Award amount equally, which was deposited in the SBI, Tis Hazari Branch, New Delhi, as per proceedings dated 02.09.2006 and amount was sent by way of cheque of Rs. 1,26,22,500.80p. The detail of amount be called with upto date accrued amount for 17.09.2014.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
ADJ02 (South), Saket
N New Delhi / 20.08.2014
LAC No. 159/2011 Page 51 of 48