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. 18B/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 Chander, s/o Sunder Lal,
r/o VPO-Bawana, Delhi .............Objector
Section 4 Notification dated: 27.1.03
Section 6 Declaration dated: 23.01.2004
Date of Institution of Reference: 11.07.2011
Date of Assignment to this court: 10.2.15
Date of Arguments: 21.8.15
Date of Order: 31.8.15
LAC-18B/2015 Page No.1/13
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 30-31 OF L. A. ACT.
1. Vide award No. 19/2005-06, land of village Bawana, Delhi was 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. 57/25(4-08) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. It was stated 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 LAC-18B/2015 Page No.2/13 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 Chander, IP no. 2 wherein it was stated that he is the absolute owner in respect of land bearing khasra no. 57/25 ad-measuring(4-08) 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 was allotted a certificate by the Gram Sabha, Bawana, Delhi. As stated the claimant is in continuous physical possession of the land in question since it was allotted to him and was irrigating the same and his name is also reflected in the khasra girdawaris as well as girdawaris showing the irrigation of the land in question by the claimant. It was also stated that the gram sabha filed a petition under section 86-A of the DLR Act for eviction of the claimant but the claimant could not be evicted from the land in question and he remained in physical and cultivatory possession of the same till the possession was taken by the LAC. It was stated that no other person except the claimant is entitled for the entire amount of compensation in respect of khasra no. 57/25 ad-measuring (4-08) being the owner as well as in possession of the land in question.
5. Reply to the petition of objector/IP no. 2 Ram Chander was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha, IP no. 1 wherein it was stated that objector/IP LAC-18B/2015 Page No.3/13 no. 2 has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material 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 the land in question under twenty point program or Gaon Sabha issued any certificate to IP no. 2. It is also denied that the claimant was irrigating the land in question till its possession was taken over by LAC. 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 10.04.12:-
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 LAC-18B/2015 Page No.4/13 village Bawana Ex. IP1W1/1. IP1W2 had brought summoned record 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. Jaipal as IP2W4 and Sh. Narender Kumar as IP2W5 and IP2W6 Hari Dutt Kaushik. IP2W1 had reiterated his claim and relied upon documents i.e. Form-57 dated 13.12.81, khasra girdawari for the year 1982-83, certificate issued by gaon sabha Pradhan dated 18.05.81, photocopy of attested copy of khasra girdawaries in respect of irrigation of crops on acquired land for the year 1998 to 2005, original receipts as per serial 8D pertaining to year 1997 to 2001 Ex. IP2W1/1 to Ex. IP2W1/5, copy of petition for declaration of bhumidari rights dated 25.4.03 was marked A and copy of order passed by SDM/RA in case titled as Gaon Sabha Bawana vs. Jeet Ram was marked B. IP2W2 supported the case of the IP no. 2. IP2W3 Ashwani Kumar, Halqa Patwari from SDM Office stated that khasra girdawari for the year 1981, 1982 and 1983 in respect of Khasra no. 57/25 has been consigned to record room Kanjhawala. IP2W4 Sh. Jaipal, Assistant Revenue Clerk from Irrigation Department had brought the khasra girdawari issued by the irrigation department for the year 1998 till 2005 and the attest copy of the same was Ex. IP2W4/1(colly).He also stated that khasra no. 57/25 was being irrigated and cultivated by Ram Chander and Dharampal s/o Sunder Lal till the year 2005 and crop Jwar was standing as on 2005. IP2W5 Sh. Narender Kumar, Record Keeper, LAC-18B/2015 Page No.5/13 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. IP2W5/1(Colly). IP2W6 Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo had stated khasra girdawari of village Bawana for the year 1981 to 1990-91 had been weeded out vide order Ex. IP2W6/1.
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.
11.I have gone through the material available on record and have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for respective IPs. My findings in the present reference petition are given below:-
12.Issue No. 1. Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation, if any, to what amount?:- In order to prove this issue, the respective IPs have led their evidence. It is the case of the claimant Sh. Ram Chander that he is the absolute owner in respect of land bearing khasra no. 57/25 ad-measuring(4-08) situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi and he was allotted the said LAC-18B/2015 Page No.6/13 khasra no. under the 20 Point Programme initiated by Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister and was allotted a certificate by the Gram Sabha, Bawana, Delhi. It is further the case of claimant that he is in continuous physical possession of the land in question since it was allotted to him and was irrigating the same and his name is also reflected in the khasra girdawaris. On the other hand, the Gaon Sabha has denied that IP no. 2 was allotted the land in question under twenty point program or Gaon Sabha issued any certificate to IP no. 2. It was also denied by Gaon Sabha that the claimant was irrigating the land in question till its possession was taken over by LAC.
13.The IP2W1 Sh. Ram Chander relied upon form LR-57 dated 13.12.81, Khasra girdawari for the year 1982-83, certificate issued by Gaon Sabha Pradhan dated 18.05.1981, attested copy of khasra girdawaries in respect of irrigation of crops on the acquired land for the year 1998 to 2005, original receipts as per serial 8D pertaining to the year 1997 to 2001 and same were Ex. IP2W1/1 to Ex. IP2W1/5 and original received copy of case for declaration of bhumidari rights filed by him in the office of SDM/RA was initially marked as Mark A and later on was exhibited as Ex. IP2W1/6. 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 land was lying vacant when the possession of land was taken over. Sh. Sahib Singh was examined as IP2W2 who is LAC-18B/2015 Page No.7/13 Pradhan and in his evidence, he has stated that he had issued the document Ex. IP2W1/1 to IP2W1/3 in the capacity of a Pradhan and he further stated that he was appointed as a Pradhan by Gram Sabha by way of a resolution duly passed and approved. He further stated that Gram Sabha never filed any case against him and resolution by way of which he was given powers to allot land to people in village Bawana was taken back by the Gaon Sabha after the completion of his tenure as Pradhan and forwarded to the next Pradhan appointed by the Gaon Sabha. He further stated that he had alloted the land to IP No. 2 namely Sh. Ram Chander on behalf of Gram Sabha on the basis of authority and resolution given to him.
14.IP2W4 Sh. Jaipal, Assistant Revenue Clerk, Irrigation Department brought the khasra girdawari issued by the Irrigation Department for the year 1998 till 2005 Ex. IP2W4/1 and stated that khasra No. 57/25 was being irrigated and cultivated by Ram Chander and Dharampal S/o Late Sunder Lal till the year 2005 and crop Jwar was standing as on 2005. Sh. Narender Kumar IP2W5 brought the original file of case 26/RA/83 titled as Gaon Sabha Vs. Jeet Ram and copy of order dated 30.04.1985 was Ex. IP2W5/1
15.IP2W5 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 No. 26/RA/83 titled as Gaon Sabha Bawana Vs. Jeet Ram and copy of order dated 30.04.85 was Ex. IP2W5/1 and name and khasra number of IP No. 2 find LAC-18B/2015 Page No.8/13 mentioned in said order dated 30.04.1985 at serial No. 71. The same clearly proves that if once eviction proceedings were initiated by the Gaon Sabha IP No. 1 then IP No. 2 must be in possession of the land in question otherwise there was no need for initiation of eviction proceeding by Gaon Sabha. 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. 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".
16.The counsel for IP No. 2 has also rightly argued that if Gaon Sabha i.e. IP No. 1 has destroyed the khasra girdawaris, then adverse inference has to be drawn against Gaon Sabha only and in support of his contention, the counsel for IP No. 2 has relied upon AIR 1968 SC 1413 and 1988 Delhi 332.
17.I am also supported in my view by the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court in Behari & Others Vs. Union of India etc. 47 (1992) DLT 300 (DB) and in Balbir Singh Vs. ADM (Revenue) and Others 57 (1995) DLT (DB). In Behari's case in para 1 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court observed that ".... We are of the view that the reason given by learned ADJ is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of bhoomidari rights of Behari in those fields. He was shown to be in possession of those fields in the judgment that in the khasra girdawari, Behari has been LAC-18B/2015 Page No.9/13 shown to be in cultivatory possession of the aforesaid khasra number after 1962-63. However, this presumption of possession, according to the learned Addl. District Judge, stood rebutted because Behari seemed to have irrigated those fields from a well situated in Khasra No. 1119/716 which did not belong to him. We are of the view that the reason given by the learned Addl. District Judge is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of Bhoomidari rights of Behari in those fields. He was shown to be in possession of those fields in the khasra Girdawari. No entry contrary to such possession emerged from any other documents like Khatauni and, therefore the conclusion drawn by learned Addl. District Judge does not appear to be sufficient. In fact, khasra girdawari are always accepted in proof of possession of a certain person. We are, therefore of the view that Behari had also acquired Bumidari rights of the aforesaid three khasra numbers measuring 4 bighas 13 biswas."
18.On the other hand, Gaon Sabha produced Sh. T. S. Joshi, Kanoongo from office of LAC 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. Rather LAC-18B/2015 Page No.10/13 in his cross-examination, he has stated 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 rather 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.
19.After observing the evidence led by parties and careful consideration of same shows and proves that IP No. 2 was in possession of the land in question as he has been successful in proving the khasra girdawari issued by the Irrigation Department for the year 1998 till 2005 Ex. IP2W4/1 and it is proved that khasra No. 57/25 was being irrigated and cultivated by Ram Chander and Dharampal S/o Late Sunder Lal till the year 2005. The Pradhan of village Sh. Sahib Singh has also deposed in favour of IP No. 2. Ex. IP2W1/6 is an application for declaration of bhumidari rights relied upon by IP No. 2. Moreover, the Gaon Sabha has neither taken any steps nor challenged the khasra girdarwaris in favour of IP No. 2. When it has been proved that IP No. 2 was irrigating the land in question, hence he has been able to establish his possession over the land in question.
20.The Gaon Sabha has argued that bhumidari rights have not been declared in favour of IP No. 2 by concerned revenue authorities. The LAC-18B/2015 Page No.11/13 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." When in the present circumstances when Gaon Sabha has neither proved his possession nor ownership, the claim of IP No. 1 is not tenable. The possession is established in favour of IP No. 2. It is also proved that he was in possession for the last 5 years and bhumidari application was pending. So in these circumstances and in view of the discussion of law discussed above, the IP No. 2 is held entitled for entire compensation. The Gaon Sabha could not refute the entries, when prima facie possession of IP No. 2 is proved then ownership of Gaon Sabha should have been proved on record. It should have been further proved that possession was taken from Gaon Sabha by LAC authority which IP No. 1 has failed to prove. It is LAC-18B/2015 Page No.12/13 also not proved as to how Gaon Sabha came into picture as alleged by them and what was basis as it is not made out as to why they have not challenged the entries and particularly what was the need for them to file eviction petition, if IP No. 2 was not in possession. Thus IP No. 2 Ram Chander is entitled for entire amount of compensation.
21.Relief:- In view of the above finding, the reference is decided. IP No. 2 is hereby granted 100% of compensation in respect of khasra no. 57/25 measuring (4-08) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bawana, Delhi. Payment be called with up to date interest in the name of IP No. 2. District Nazir is directed to remit the awarded amount of the land to the entitled IP in above terms as per above findings. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC. District Nazir will distribute the amount as per above observation to the entitled I.P. after receiving the amount from concerned bank. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (AJAY GOEL)
on 31.08.2015 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi.
LAC-18B/2015 Page No.13/13