Delhi District Court
Lac No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union ... vs . Atma Ram & Ors. 1/38 on 18 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 29/A/10/08
New No. 64/16
Union of India
versus
1. Sh. Atma Ram S/o Late Sh. Chander Bhan
Since deceased through LRs:
(I). Smt. Omwati (wife)
W/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(II). Sh. Dinesh Lakra (son)
S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(III). Sh. Narender Lakra (son)
S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
All R/o Village & Post Office
Mundka, Delhi.
(IV). Smt. Shakuntala Devi (daughter)
W/o Sh. Satish Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
R/o D-35, Manglapuri,
Delhi-110045.
(V). Smt. Saroj
W/o Sh. Ramphool Sehrawat
D/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
R/o House No. 33, Village Amberhigh
near Sector-19, Dwarka,
Delhi-110075.
2. Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal
S/o late Sh. Kedar Nath Aggarwal
R/o 5-B, Russel Street, Gan House,
Kolkatta -110016.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 1/38
3. Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal
R/o 5-B, Russel Street, Gan House,
Kolkata -110016.
4. Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal
R/o 5-B, Russel Street, Gan House,
Kolkata -110016.
5. Sh. Krishan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hoshiyar Singh
Village & Post Office
Mundka, Delhi-110041.
.....Interested Parties
Award No. : 02/DC(W)/2008-09
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 01.01.2009
Date of institution of the case : 11.07.2008
Date of reserving of judgment : 29.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.08.2017
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) referred reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect to Award no. 02/DC(W)/2008-2009 measuring 4 Bigha and 1 Biswa in Khasra No. 1011 shown at Sl. No. 55 in the Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.32,62,372/- for the purpose of construction of depot, staf quarters and TSS of Inderlok-Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot). Subsequently, balance compensation of Rs.27,06,523/- was also deposited on 02.06.2009. The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 2/38
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons.
3. As per order dated 11.07.2008, the cheque No. 204587 dated 09.07.2008 of Rs.32,62,372/- was directed to be deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal year to year basis. Subsequently, a cheque bearing no. 693343 dated 20.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.27,06,523/- was also received from the office of LAC (West), which was also directed to be deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal year to year basis. Thus a total sum of Rs.59,68,895/- was received as compensation from the LAC office.
4. IP No. 1 Sh. Atma Ram filed his claim. He stated that he was the owner and in possession of the property/plot of land bearing Khasra No. 1011 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa situated within the extended Lal Dora abadi of village Mundka, Delhi, which was acquired by the Collector for construction of Metro Project. The aforesaid plot was allotted to IP No.1 in lieu of his agricultural land bearing Khasra no. 26/9/1 (3-12), 25/8/2 (2-14), 25/9/1 (1-16) total measuring 8 Bigha 2 Biswa standard by the Consolidation Authorities during consolidation proceedings in the said village. The physical possession of the aforesaid plot was handed over by the Consolidation authorities to the IP No.1 on 07.02.1997. The revenue records with regard to the allotment, handing over of physical possession to the IP No. 1, orders passed by the authorities and courts regarding the said plot are attached with the petition.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 3/38
5. It is stated that initially the plot of land bearing Khasra no. 1011 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa was allotted to one Sh. Krishan Kumar but the said allotment was cancelled/withdrawn and thereafter the plot No. 1011 (4-01) was alloted to the IP No.1. It is further stated that during consolidation proceedings the land of the IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram bearing Khasra no. 26/9/1 (3-12), 25/8/2 (2-14), 25/9/1 (1-16) total measuring 8 Bigha 2 Biswa standard was allotted to IP No. 5 Sh. Krishan Kumar after withdrawal of the land bearing Khasra No. 1011, measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa and the said plot of land was finally allotted and handed over to the IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram.
6. It is stated that the aggrieved parties i.e. Sh.Krishan Kumar and others challenged the said allotment but lastly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to pass an order in CWP No. 829/85 thereby confirming the allotment of the plot of land bearing Khasra No. 1011 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa in favour of the IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram vide order dated 26.12.1996. After allotment and taking over of the physical possession of the aforesaid plot, the IP No.1 raised construction/ boundary walls and fixed an Iron Gate in the said plot of land and since then IP No.1 was in use and occupation of the same being its recorded owner.
7. It is stated that IP nos. 2 to 4 and local police i.e. area ACP Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bansal and one Sub Inspector Sh.Suraj Bhan were having an evil eye on the said plot of land of the IP No. 1 and in order to meet their illegal motive and design, the said IPs and their associates conspired to grab the plot in question and in furtherance of their illegal motives and LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 4/38 designs, the IP No.2 on the basis of old Sale Deed of agricultural land bearing Khasra nos. 67/9 and 67/2 situated in village Mundka made a false claim before the Revenue and Police authorities in respect of plot bearing Khasra No. 1011 of the IP No.1. In response to the aforesaid false claim of IP No.2, the IP no.1 submitted his complete record in respect of the plot in question before the police and concerned authorities and requested them for the protection of the lives of his family members and his properties. But the said IPs and local police officers as mentioned above in the night of 21.11.1999 i.e. on 22.11.99 took away all the goods and belongings of the IP No.1 forcibly, illegally, unlawfully and without any authority and dispossessed the IP no.1 from the plot in question and took the forcible physical possession of the plot in question. Two security guards of the IP no.1 present at the property at that time were also illegally detained by the said police officers in the police station on 22.11.1999 i.e. in the night of 21.11.1999. A false case was also lodged against the IP no.1 and his servants by the said police officers vide FIR No. 1221/1999 under Section 448/504/34 IPC in PS Nangloi. The IP No. 1 made complaint to all concerned authorities regarding the said incident but of no use.
8. It is stated that as per the Revenue Record the land shown in the alleged Sale deed of the IP Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. bearing Khasra No. 67/9 and 67/2 belongs to Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh S/o Sh. Deep Chand R/o Village and Post Office Mundka and during consolidation proceedings the said Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh as per the provision of the Consolidation Act have taken double land LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 5/38 against the said Khasra of land. The said Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh are not having any right, title or interest in any manner in the plot bearing Khasra No. 1011, measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa of the IP No. 1.
9. It is stated that IP No.1 filed a civil suit for possession and damages in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the IP no.2 to 4 and aforesaid police officials. It is stated that the said ACP Sh. R.K. Bansal has been charged by the CBI in a case of corruption and he was arrested in that case and remained in jail for a long time and he has committed number of ofences during his tenure. The IP No.2 in collusion with his two sons i.e. IP Nos. 3 and 4 in order to protect their illegal acts and deeds filed a false, frivolous and baseless suit against the IP No.1 before the Ho'ble High Court of Delhi bearing suit No. 2645/1999 on the basis of the aforesaid Sale Deeds relating to Khasra No. 67/9 and 67/2 belonging to Sh. Surjan Singh & others and IP Nos. 2 to 4 claimed their possession in the property in question and they could succeed in obtaining the injunction order dated 05.12.2000 from the Hob/ble High Court. The IP No.1 also challenged the said injunction order in FAO (OS) 59/2001 before the Division Bench but the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said FAO in limine vide order dated 13.03.2001.
10. It is stated that the land in question is a residential Lal Dora plot and it was allotted as per the need and requirement of the IP No.1 and his family members after deducting his double agriculture land bearing Khasra no. 26/9/1 (3-12), 25/8/2 (2-14), 25/9/1 (1-16) total measuring 8 Bigha 2 Biswa as mentioned above. No person other than IP LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 6/38 no.1 has any right, title or interest in the land in question and its compensation as assessed by the Collector and IP No.1 alone is entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation and benefits of the said land.
11. The Disputants No. 1 to 3 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal filed reply to the claim filed by IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram. In the reply the averments made in the claim petition are denied as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the answering disputants no. 1 to 3 are the Interested persons in the acquired land/plot/structure bearing Khasra no. 1011 situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka. The answering disputants had purchased the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 from the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh, both sons of Sh. Deep Chand vide registered sale deed bearing registration no. 10907, Vol. No. 4787 dated 24.12.1885 bearing registration no. 10905 Vol. No. 4787 dated 24.12.1885, bearing registration No. 10909 Vol. no. 4787 dated 24.12.1985. The answering disputants raised structure on the above mentioned land and installed a Saw Mill, which was situated on main Rohtak Road. The said built up structure was including an office, godown and a servant quarter on the said acquired land.
12. It is stated that during the consolidation in village Mundka, the said agricultural land in question was later on merged within the extended Lal Dora and subsequently plot no. 1011 was carved out of it. It was originally allotted to Sh. Krishan Kumar and later on it came to be allotted to Sh. Atma LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 7/38 Ram. The answering disputants were running their business in the said property and a telephone was installed therein by the answering disputants. The answering disputants have installed the machinery on the above mentioned property/plot and they have bills in respect of machinery, diesel engine etc. The answering disputants obtained an insurance fire cover in respect of this properties existed on the Khasra No. 67/2 and 9. The answering disputants filed a suit against Sh. Atma Ram and other before Hon'le High Court of Delhi for permanent injunction and later on the same was remanded back to District Court due to change of jurisdiction and the said suit was adjourned sine die.
13. It is stated that the answering disputants also filed CWP No. 868/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court against Sh. Atma Ram and others and the said petition was withdrawn by the answering disputants to avail the remedy under Section 42 before the Financial Commissioner. The answering disputants had filed writ petition against extension of Lal Dora in their built up land/plot and the said matter was remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.07.2007 before the court of Financial Commissioner with direction to decide case No. 145/2000. The answering disputants challenged the consolidation proceedings in respect of their land by filing a suit bearing no. 2645/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court and in the said matter Sh.Atma Ram and others were restrained from dispossessing the answering disputants from the suit property i.e. Kh. No. 67/2,9.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 8/38
14. It is stated that the answering disputants were in possession of the land in question since its purchase and were recorded owners and they were enjoying their possession till the possession was taken by the government. The answering disputants also lodged an FIR against Sh.Atma Ram and others in PS Nangloi as well as complaint dated 18.10.1999 before Vigilance Department D.V.B. The possession of the land/structure along with machinery exist on plot bearing 1011 was taken by the government from the answering disputants. It is stated that no body else except the answering disputants are the rightful claimants for the compensation assessed of the above said land/structure/plot.
15. Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, objectors also filed claim under Section 9 & 10 of the LA Act. It is stated that Objectors had purchased the land comprising of 1 bigha 15 biswas each in Killa No. 67/2 and 67/9 in village Mundka vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.1985, which they have purchased during consolidation proceedings and the said land was purchased with the prior permission of the Consolidation Officer. The said land purchased by the objectors included in extended firni/ lal dora by the concerned department vide order dated 15.06.1988 and in lieu of that purchased land, the original recorded owner of the land were allotted other alternative land and the Khasra No. 1009, 1010, 1011 was became new Khasra number of the extended Lal Dora abadi on the land which was purchased by the objector vide sale deed.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 9/38
16. It is stated that aggrieved by the said order of S.D. (C) the present objectors filed objections in their revision petition before Financial Commissioner which has been adjourned sine die pending decision of related matter in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the form of CWP No. 348/93 and Hon'ble High Court has granted the stay against the order of S.O. (C) and also against the order of the Financial Commission. On 02.07.2007, the Hon'ble High Court had remanded back the WP No. 348/93 to the Financial Commissioner for disposal of the said matter within four months.
17. It is stated that the land had been acquired by the Government and payment is pending before this Court and the Khasra umber mentioned above belong to other persons but the actual owners of the land are the objectors. The Objector constructed a Saw Mill on the above mentioned land and the same exists in Khasra No. 1009, 1010 and 1011. The possession of the said Khasra numbers is with the objector and the objectors have every right in the above mentioned acquired land. It is stated that since the dispute has arisen about the amendment in the consolidation scheme and extension of firny/lal dora, the name of the present objectors were not included/mutated in the Revenue Records, however, the objectors have become the owners/bhumidhars by virtue of the sale deed.
18. The Disputant Nos. 1, 2 & 3/ IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal also filed their claim. The disputants/present claimants have reiterated the averments LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 10/38 made in the reply filed by them to the claim of IP No.1 Sh.Atma Ram as well as in their claim filed under Section 9 & 10 of the L.A. Act.
19. IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram also filed reply to the claim filed by Disputant Nos. 1, 2 & 3/ IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal. In the preliminary objections, it is stated that IP Nos. 2 to 4 have no right, title or interest in the acquired land bearing Khasra No. 1011, situated within the extended Lal Dora abadi of village Mundka, Delhi as the same was allotted by the competent authority to the IP No. 1 and the claim filed by IP Nos. 2 to 4 is liable to be rejected.
20. It is stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 was agricultural land and during consolidation proceedings another agricultural land has been allotted against the said Khasra number to the owner of the said Khasra nos. and as such the IP No.2 to 4 have no right or authority to claim the compensation of the land bearing Khasra No. 1011 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa situated within the extended Lal Dora abadi of village Mundka, Delhi, which belongs to the IP No.1 being the lawful allottee of the said land.
21. On merits, the averments made in the claim by the IP Nos. 2 to 4 are denied as wrong and incorrect by the IP No.1 and averments made in his claim are reiterated.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 11/38
22. IP Sh. Krishan Kumar also filed reply to the claim of Disputants No. 1 to 3/ IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In the preliminary objections, it is stated that the claim of the disputants is with respect of agricultural land comprised in Khasra Nos. 67/2 and 67/9 purchased from Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghubir Singh, right holders in the court of course of consolidation operation. The purchases were allegedly made after allotment of agricultural land to the vendors pursuant to the Scheme of Consolidation of the year 1976. The Scheme was amended before culmination of the operation and the land in Field Nos. 67/2 & 67/9 besides other fragments 67/1, 3, 4 and 8 etc. sold by Sh. Surjan Singh to others. The Amended Scheme of Consolidation dated 20.05.1988 wherein 92 bighas and 8 biswas of agricultural land including land in Filed Nos. 67/2 & 67/9 besides other mins (parts) of Khasra no. 67 was challenged by Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh, Right Holders and several vendees other than the disputants herein. During arguments the LRs of Shri Surjan Singh and Shri Raghubir Singh withdrew the Writ Petition on the condition that possession of land allotted to them under the Amended Scheme of Consolidation dated 20.05.1988 be directed to be given to them. This was allowed by order dated 24.10.2005. Writ petition No. 348 of 1993 as regards other petitioners was dismissed on merits vide order dated 02.07.2007, which order was not challenged and attained finality.
23. It is stated that the disputants lost whatever rights they had sought to acquire under the Scheme of Consolidation of the year 1976 which was superseded by the Amended Scheme as regards 92 Bighas and 8 Biswas of the LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 12/38 land for extension of the Lal Dora and other purposes. The disputants had filed Revision Petition under Section 42 of the Act challenging the Amended Scheme before the Ld. Financial Commissioner, Delhi, which was kept pending to await the adjudication of CW No. 348 of 1993. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Financial Commissioner refusing the request for revival of the Revision Petition, filed Writ petition no. 5815/2000, wherein by order dated 02.07.2007 direction was given to the Financial Commissioner to dispose of the Revision Petition in the light of order passed in CWP No. 348 of 1993. The Revision Petition of the disputant has been dismissed by order dated 30.04.2009. As a result of which, the disputants are not interested person as regards land in plot no. 1011, which has since been acquired and possession was taken by the Government being distinct from what they supposed to be their land.
24. It is stated that there is no nexus between the claim preferred by the disputants in regard to the erstwhile land in field Nos. 67/2 & 67/9 and compensation payable in respect of plot No. 1011 which was allotted to Shri Krishan Kumar by order dated 24.07.1989 pursuant to the Amended Scheme of Consolidation dated 20.05.1988 by the Consolidation Officer and subsequently withdrawn by Sh. S.K. Sharma, Consolidation Officer, fraudulently in collusion with Atma Ram by order dated 26.12.1996 in grave violation of the status quo order dated 29.01.1993 confirmed by order dated 30.03.1993 passed in CWP No. 500/93 filed by Krishan Kumar is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. One of the reliefs prayed therein is revival of allotment of plot No. 1011 in favour of Sh. Krishan Kumar. The order dated 02.06.1996 LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 13/38 being void, the allotment by order dated 24.07.1989 in favour of Sh. Krishan Kumar survives and subsists.
25. On merits, the averments made in the claim of disputants are denied as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the claim to the land in plot no. 1011 which was admittedly allotted to Sh. Krishan Kumar and was subsequently withdrawn and allotted to Sh. Atma Ram by Sh.S.K. Sharma, Consolidation Officer in gross violation of the Status Quo order dated 29.01.1993 confirmed by order dated 30.03.1993 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 500 of 1993 being product of fraud and conspiracy and illegality committed deliberately vested in Sh. Krishan Kumar, as possession follows title.
26. During the trial of the matter, IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram expired and accordingly, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2010 and LRs of IP no.1 allowed to be substituted.
27. No claim filed by IP No.4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 16.05.2009:
1. Which of the IP is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent?
2. Relief.
28. IP1 in support of his claim got examined IP1W1 Sh.Narender Lakra son of late Sh. Atma Ram; IP1W2 Sh.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 14/38 Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari of village Mundka; IP1W3 Sh.Manjeet Singh, Office Kanoongo, Distt. West, Rampura, Delhi. Thereafter, as per statement of LR of IP No.1 Sh.Narender Lakra, evidence on behalf of IP No.1 was closed on 27.02.2016.
29. IP Nos. 2 to 4 in support of their claim examined IP2to4W1 Sh.Kishan Lal Aggarwal. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh.Kishal Lal Aggarwal, evidence on behalf of IP nos. 3 & 4 was closed on 25.04.2016.
30. In support of his claim, IP No.5 Sh. Krishan Kumar examined himself as IP5W1. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh. B.S. Bhartwal, Counsel for the IP No.5 evidence on behalf of IP No.5 was closed on 19.03.2016.
31. I have heard Sh. J.K. Jain, Counsel for IP No. 1; Sh.R.S. Rana, Counsel for the IP Nos. 2 to 4 and Sh. Aditya Singh, Counsel for the IP No.5 and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
32. Before deciding the issue, let us first discuss the evidence led by the parties.
33. IP1W1 Sh. Narender Lakra, one of the LR of IP No.1 in his affidavit in evidence reiterated the averments made in their claim and proved on record copy of registered Karyawahi/Khatauni of the land allotted by the Consolidation authority to Sh.Surjan Singh & Ors as Ex. A-1; certified copy LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 15/38 of Khasra Girdawari of the year 2006-07 as Ex. A-2; list of Fard Sarkar Scheme no. 267/76/C.O along with English translation as Ex. A-3; list of Fard Patwar Scheme no. 267/76/C.O along with English translation as Ex. A-4; certified copy of Khatauni paymaish as Ex. A-5; certified copy of Khatauni of Khasra no. 25/8/2 and 25/9/1 as Ex. A-6; certified copy of Khatauni issued by the Revenue Official pertaining to the plot of the Khasra no. 1011 as Ex. A-7; certified copy of letter of approval dated 26.08.1988 as Ex. A-8; certified copy of list for demand of land as Ex. A-9; certified copies of various orders as Ex. A-10 to A-13; certified copy of statement of Sh. S.K.Sharma, Consolidation Officer in CC No.149/1999 as Ex. A-14; certified copy of statement of Sh. Jai singh and Sh. Laxmi Chand in CC No. 149/1999 as Ex. A- 15; copy of the suit filed by IP No.1 as Ex. A-16; copy of registered Karyawahi for consolidation proceedings of village Mundka along with Khasra Girdawari as Ex. A-17; copy of asks sizra as Ex. A-18; certified copy of list of plot and passage of the land of khasra numbers of village Mundka as Ex. A-20; copy of FIR No. 1221/99 of PS Nangloi as Ex. A-21; copy of the demarcation report as Ex. A-23; original Lal Dora Certificate as Ex. A-24.
34. IP1W1 Sh. Narender Lakra in his cross-
examination deposed that he did not know the old Khasra number of the land where plot bearing no. 1011 measuring 4 bigha 1 biswa was chalked out/earmarked. He cannot say if plot no. 1011 is chalked out from land bearing old Khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9 situated in village Mundka. He denied the suggestion that his father had attempted to take forcible possession of khasra no. 1011. He denied that possession of LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 16/38 the said land was never handed over to his father by the revenue authorities. An FIR No. 1221/99 was registered against his father in respect of this land. He did not know objector Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal. He admitted that Ex. A-16 which is the suit for possession, damages and mesne profits was filed by his father before the Hon'ble High Court wherein he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. He cannot say if the issue of possession in the said suit has been struck of. He cannot admit or deny the suggestion that issue of possession in the above said suit has been struck of on 23.03.2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
35. IP1W1 Sh. Narender Lakra in his cross-
examination further deposed that during life time of his father he got the documents pertaining to this case. Since they were already in possession of the subject plot there was no occasion to file the application for possession. He did not move any application for certified copy of the Khasra Girdawari Ex. A2, list Ex. A-3, Fard Ex. A-4, Khatoni Ex. A-5 to A-7 as they were made available by the Patwari as per procedure. He has not filed application for certified copy of plaint Ex. A-16 nor he has got certified copy with him. He did not know Urdu language. He did not know fro whom the translation were got done as they were got done by his deceased father. He denied the suggestion that the kahsra Girdawari, Khatoni, asks Sajra, consolidation proceedings, lisdt of area partition, list of Rasta Phirni and other revenue record filed by him are forged and fabricated. He denied that Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal had done the boundary wall on the dispute plot. He volunteered that it was done by his father. He denied that there was a telephone connection no. 5471398 in LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 17/38 the name of Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal over the subject plot. He denied that no saw mill was installed at the plot in dispute. He denied the suggestion that his father attempted to trespass over the subject plot. He volunteered that at the instance of Rakesh Bansal, ACP and Krishan Kumar Aggarwal attempted to trespass over the subject plot. He cannot identify Krishan Kumar Aggarwal as he has never seen him. He denied the suggestion that Ex. A-18 is not according to original and same is forged and fabricated document and the same has not been issued by Revenue Authorities. He denied that Sh. Aggarwal had his machinery in the shape of diesel engine and other articles pertaining to insurance of the machinery, or that they were stolen by them. His father was never arrested in connection with trespass and theft over the subject property.
36. IP1W1 Sh. Narender Lakra in his cross-
examination further deposed that an application for obtaining Lal Dora Certificate from the office of SDM was applied by his father. The said application might have been given by his father to him before his death and he cannot say the whereabouts of the said application. He did not have the copy of the Challan whereby fee of demarcation was deposited or not in the treasury. He did not know whether any letter was sent by the office of Tehsildar/SDM before issue of Ex. P-24. His father might have submitted the allotment papers to the Tehsildar/SDM at the time of applying of the issue of Lal Dora Certificate Ex. P-24. No intimation letter about the visit of the assistant of the Patwari was received by his father but the person of the Patwari visited at the spot and told that tomorrow revenue staf will come for verify their LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 18/38 plot and he did not remember the date on which he visited. The said person of Patwari told that staf will come after two three days and requested them to make it convenient to be present at the spot. After 2-3 days, 3-4 officials visited the spot and their father might have been aware as to anything was taken in writing from his father or some private persons at that time. Probably his father might have bring the Ex. P- 24/Lal Dora Certificate from the concerned staf. He did not remember whether any case filed either before Hon'ble High Court or before the Financial Commissioner for protecting the allotment of plot no. 1011. He did not know whether dimensions of the directions mentioned in the Ex. P-24 are correct or not but the revenue staf may be aware about the actual situation of the plot and the situations of the plots around the land in question.
37. IP1W2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari deposed that he has brought the summoned record. Khatoni for the year 2005 to 2006 of Khasra no. 1011 shows the name of Atma Ram in the column of Bhumidar as per original record brought by him, which is Ex. IP1W2/A. The Khatoni paimaish for the year 1997-98 is Ex. IP1W2/B. In his cross-examination this witness deposed that the record only shows the name of the recorded owner. It does not show the possession. He admitted that the directions/orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court are entered in the Khatoni with red pen. The record of khatoni for the year 2005-06 was prepared after the year 1997-98.
38. IP1W3 Sh. Manjeet Singh, Office kanoongo deposed that he has brought the summoned record LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 19/38 pertaining to proceedings registered for the year 1976 with regard to Hakhdar no.5 pertaining to Khasra no. 25/8, 25/9. The photocopy of the same is placed on record in Urdu language, which is Ex. IP1W3/A. Copy of Khasra Girdawari of the year 2000-01 of village Mundka is Ex. IP1W3/B. This witness in his cross-examination deposed that he never remained as Patwari of village Mundka. Ex. IP1W3/A is in torn condition and some part on the bottom of the same is missing by way of tearing. He studied English upto 12 th standard. Neither he can speak nor read Urdu language. He can understand only Khasra numbers written in English numerical but he cannot read the other contents therein. He did not have knowledge regarding ex. IP1W3/A. The Ex. IP1W3/B bears khasra numbers mentioned therein and the Khasra numbers mentioned therein have no relation or concern with regard to plot no. 1011 situated in the extended Lal Dora. No entry with regard to any court directions are mentioned in the Khasra Girdawari and the same is recorded in the khatoni only.
39. IP2 to 4W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his affidavit Ex. IP2 to 4W1/A in evidence reiterated the averments made in the claim filed on behalf of the IP Nos. 2 to 4. He proved on record certified copy of authority dated 14.08.1989 as Ex. IP2W2/1; certified copy of authority dated 14.08.1989 as Ex. IP2W2/2; certified copy of sale deed dated 24.12.1985 in favour of Vinod Kumar as Ex. IP2W2/3; certified copy of sale deed dated 24.12.1985 in favour of his son Raj Kumar as Ex. IP2W2/4; certified copy of sale deed dated 24.12.1985 in his favour as Ex. IP2W2/5; copy of order dated 24.07.1989 of the CO as Ex. IP2W2/6; original MTNL registration dated LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 20/38 01.09.1989 as Ex. IP2W2/7; original MTNL telephone bills are Ex. IP2W2/8 to Ex. IP2W2/25; original insurance cover note with policy are Ex. IP2W2/26 (colly); original Diesel Engine Bill and test report are Ex. IP2W2/27 and Ex. IP2W2/28; certified copy of order dated 26.04.2005 in suit no. 2645/99 is Ex. IP2W2/29; certified copy of order dated 15.02.2000 (sick 14.02.2000) Writ Petition No. 868/2000 is Ex. IP2W2/30; certified copy of order dated 02.07.2007 passed in WPC No. 5815/2000 is Ex. IP2W2/31; certified copy of order dated 30.04.2009 in case no. 201/2007 CA (Old No. 145/2000) passed by FC is Ex. IP2W2/32; copy of order dated 05.12.1999 is Ex. IP2W2/33; certified copy of order dated 13.03.2001 in FAO (OS) No. 89/2001 is Ex. IP2W2/34; original receipt no. 1440 dated 19.01.1999 of photographer of Sangam Photo Studio and receipt no. 113 dated 05.12.1999 for telephone instruments issued by Madan Watch and radio are Ex. IP2W2/35 and Ex. IP2W2/36 respectively; original 11 colour photographs of the property of the petitioners are Ex. IP2W2/37 (colly); certified copies of anticipatory bail order dated 29.04.2000 passed by Ld. ASJ rejecting bail and bail order dated 01.12.2000 passed by Ld. MM are Ex. IP2W2/38 (colly); certified copy of FIR No. 1221/99 dated 21.11.1999 is Ex. IP2W2/40; copy of original complaints dated 28.04.1994, 05.12.1999, 08.12.1999, 04.11.1999, 29.11.1999, 14.11.1999, 30.04.1996, 28.03.1996, 21.01.2000 and 11.01.2002 made to SHO are Ex. IP2W2/41 (colly); copy of original complaints dated 28.04.2000, 23.01.2002 and 21.01.2002 made to ACP are Ex. IP2W2/42 (colly); copy of original complaints dated 21.01.2002 and 21.01.2002 (sick 21.02.2002) made to DCP, DCP Vigilance are Ex. IP2W2/43 (colly); copy of original complaints dated 11.01.2002 and LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 21/38 22.12.2002 made to SDM Nangloi areEx. IP2W2/44 (colly); copy of original complaint dated 01.12.1999 made to NHRC is Ex. IP2W2/45; certified copy of Inquiry report dated 14.07.2005 (sick 14.05.2005) of Tehsildar Punjabi Bagh and order dated 15.07.2005 passed by Ld. RA/SDM/SO (c)- Punjabi Bagh is Ex. IP2W2/46; certified copy of massavie and Aks Sizera both coloured of village Mundka are Ex. IP2W2/47.
40. IP2 to 4W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination deposed that the consolidation has been going on in this village since 1976. He purchased the land during consolidation. Prior to consolidation the owners of Khasra No. 67/2 & 67/9 were Gaghuvir Singh and Surjan Singh. He did not see the revenue record about their ownership. He admitted that the land in question was agricultural land and after consolidation new Khasra Nos were allotted 1009, 1010 and 1011. He did not know the measurement of Khasra nos prior to consolidation and after consolidation. He had purchased the land from Raghuvir Singh & Surjan Singh having Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9. His name was entered in the consolidation register. In the revenue record the land was allotted to some other persons. He volunteered that he had filed a revision petition against the allotment. He did not file objections before CO but filed before FC wherein CO was impleaded as a party. He had purchased total 5 bigha 5 biswa in his name and his two sons. After consolidation the area remains the same. To a specific question that did he get the possession of newly allot Khasra number after consolidation proceedings, he replied that he is not understanding the question and its meaning but he remain the possession of the land which was purchased by him.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 22/38
41. IP2 to 4W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination denied the suggestion that neither Raghubir nor Krishan Kumar nor Surjan Singh nor he himself had possession of newly allotted Khasra numbers after consolidation proceedings. To a specific question that the land was allotted to IP No.1 Atma Ram, he replied that it was allotted illegally. He deposed that he was not present whiel the inquiry was done by Sh. Shyam Sunder, Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh. Tehsildar did not submit his report to any authority in his presence. He was not present when the said report was submitted and what action was taken by R.A. over the same as he came to know about these documents only from the reliable source Sh. Hardwari Lal in the year 2015. He did not make inquiry from Hardwari Lal as to whether any challenge to that report and order before any court. He did not know the relation of Hardwari Lal and Atma Ram. He did not know if Hardwari Lal and Atma Ram were in litigation for more than 20 years. He did not have the knowledge that the orders of RA dated 15.07.2005 Ex. IPW2/46 were challenged by IP no.1 before the F.C. He did not know whether F.C. set aside the said order and the inquiry report. He has no knowledge of any other order whereby allotment of IP no.1 was cancelled and land was withdrawn from him. He admitted that the plot no. 1011 was alloted to Kishan Kumar and thereafter withdrawn and then allotted to IP No.1 but it was illegal. He volunteered that he had filed a Writ Petition No. 5815/2000 in the High Court.
42. IP2 to 4W1 Sh. Kishan Lal Aggarwal in his cross- examination denied the suggestion that he tried to illegally take the possession of disputed land but could not succeed.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 23/38 He denied that police action by way of FIR was initiated against him by police. He volunteered that Atma Ram IP no.1 made attempt to dispossess him from the disputed land with the help of two gunmen on 21.11.99. IP No.1 threatened him of dire consequences and he had filed FIR No.1221/99 on the same day. He had also filed a suit suit.
43. IP5W1 Sh. Krishan Kumar tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP5W1/A, in which he almost reiterated the averments made in his claim. In his cross-examination on behalf of IP No.1, he denied the suggestion that during consolidation proceedings the land in question i.e. plot no. 1011, 4 bighas 1 biswa was allotted to Atma Ram. He volunteered that it was allotted to him. He admitted that allotment in his favour was cancelled. He did not remember the year. He had challenged the order of cancellation of allotment before the Division Bench of High Court. He admitted that the land in question after cancellation was allotted to IP Atma Ram. He denied the suggestion that till today the said allotment in the name of Atma Ram has not been cancelled. He denied the suggestion that now 20 years have been passed after the allotment to IP Atma Ram. He denied that for the last 20 years till acquisition, the possession of the land in question remained with IP Atma Ram. He denied that he has no right in the land in question.
44. In his cross-examination on behalf of IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he deposed that his father was not alive in the year 1976. He did not know his exact date of birth but he is 61 years old. He denied the suggestion that he did nto make any demand for allotment of land in question. He denied that LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 24/38 he is not entitled for any compensation of the acquired land in question.
45. I have heard Sh. J.K. Jain, Counsel for the LRs of IP No.1 Sh.Atma Ram and also gone through the written submissions submitted along with judgments. Sh. J.K. Jain submitted that the Khasra No. 1011 measuring 4 bigha 1 biswa (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute') was alloted in extended Lal Dora to the deceased Sh.Atma Ram in lieu of pre-consolidation of land bearing Kila No. 26/9/1 (3-
12), 25/2 (2-14) and 25/9/1 (1-16) in all 8 bighas 2 biswas and possession was delivered by the Consolidation Officer on 07.02.1997. The allotment was confirmed in Civil Writ Petition no. 829/86 decided on 26.12.1996 and some construction was also raised by fixing iron gate. He further submitted that IP nos. 2 to 4 claiming the land on the basis of sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 of Kila No. 67/9 and 67/2. However, they admitted that they have got no sale deed of plot no. 1011. It is further submitted that in November 1999, the IP Nos. 2 to 4 in collusion with ACP Rakesh Kumar Bansal and SI Suraj Bhan forcibly dispossessed the IP No.1 from the land in dispute and a suit for possession was filed by IP no.1 before the Hon'ble High Court sometime on 25.09.2006 and thereafter continued till the land was acquired vide award no. 02/2008-09. It is submitted that the entire evidence led by IP nos. 2 to 4 pertaining to title and possession of land in Kila No. 67/2 and 67/9 though not of the extended Lal Dora plot no. 1011. It is further submitted that as far as IP No.5 Sh. Krishan Kumar is concerned, undisputedly initially it was alloted to him but the allotment was cancelled because as per Consolidation Scheme, if IP no.1 is claiming compensation on the basis of LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 25/38 title, he has surrendered twice his land during consolidation as per Scheme, it was only Vendor, IP Nos. 2 to 4, who were entitled for allotment could take allotment accrued to their predecessor only. The claim put by IP nos. 2 to 4 drawing that the land of extended Lal Dora was carved out of Kila No. 67/2 and 67/9 patently false.
46. Sh. J.K. Jain, Counsel for LRs of IP no.1 further submitted that IP1W1 Sh. Narender Lakra appeared and proved the case and also proved various documents i.e. Khatoni Ex. A-7 and the fact that land in dispute was not in possession of Sh. Krishan Kumar or owned by him. There are several orders passed by Financial Commissioner and up to Hon'ble High Court as Ex. A-10 to A-13 also filed on record. The fact with regard to dispossession from the suit land by IP nos. 2 to 4 also brought on record. The record of consolidation is also filed and proved on record. There is no claim of IP nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of adverse possession of more than 12 years. IP nos. 2 to 4 are claiming rights on the basis of rights of Sh. Surjan etc. No electric connection or construction at plot no. 1011 proved by IP nos. 2 to 4. Ex. A- 18 Aks Sizra shows that land of plot no. 1011 is having plot no. 1010 on one side and plot no. 1024 on other side and measurement is also shown to be 4 bigha 1 biswa. The telephone, electricity bills and other insurance papers also pertaining to Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9. The Khatoni Ex.A-7 for the year 2005-06 shows that there was no right of either Surjan Singh or predecessor of IP nos. 2 to 4 with regard to land in dispute.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 26/38
47. Sh. J.K. Jain further submitted that the allotment of plot no. 1011 to IP No.1 by the Consolidation authority has not been challenged by IP nos. 2 to 4 at any point of time till date. Even no proceedings shown to have been initiated by IP nos. 2 to 4 showing that plot no. 1011 had been carved out of land bearing khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9. No claim has been made. A false impression was tried to be created by IP nos. 2 to 4. The order of SDM has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner. As far as evidence of Sh. Krishan Kumar is concerned, Ex.A-5 shows that the land of IP NO.5, Krishan Kumar total measuring 8 bigha 2 biswa bearing khasra no. 25/9/1, 8/2 and 26/9/1, out of which 4 bigha 10 biswa had been vested with Gaon Sabha and as such total land left was 3 bigha 12 biswa only. Therefore, as per Scheme, a person has to surrender double the agricultural land for allotment of alternative plot in extended Lal Dora. IP No.5 Sh. Krishan Kumar has not demanded any plot and could not been allotted plot in the Scheme. The Bhumidhari has been proved by IP no.1 of the land in dispute as per award no. 2/2008-09. It is submitted that IP nos. 2 to 4 have not proved any record pertaiing to carving out of plot no. 1009, 1010 and 1011 from Khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9 during the consolidation proceedings. There is no mutation in the name of IP nos. 2 to
4. The allotment of consolidation would have been done only in the Khata of Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh. The LAC has acquired the land of plot no. 1011. IP nos. 2 to 4 proved Aks Sizra Ex. IPW2/46 and Ex. IPW2/47. While the former one was delivered on 15.03.2000 and the later one was allegedly delivered on 22.03.2000. It shows fabrication by IP nos. 2 to 4. Aks Sizra of 15.03.2000 does not contain any figure of 67/2 or 67/9. The Consolidation authorities had LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 27/38 power to do amendment in any Aks Sizra as held by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ram Nath vs. Financial Commissioner, 25 (1984) DLT 20 and Ram Sarup vs. Ram Nath, 38 (1989) DLT 473. Finally, it is submitted that the acquired land of plot no. 1011 is left to be entitled to LRs of IP No.1 and compensation be paid to LRs of IP no. 1.
48. Sh. R.S.Rana, Counsel for the IP nos. 2 to 4 filed written arguments. I have gone through the same. Sh. R.S. Rana submitted that consolidation proceedings of village Mundka initiated in the 1975. On 27.05.1976, Consolidation Scheme has been prepared and approved by Settlement Officer. On 04.04.1983, Settlement Officer dropped all proposals for amendment scheme with regard to demand of 'Haqdars' for allotment of plots within the 'Phirni' and reconfirms the earlier scheme. On 29.11.1985, land bearing Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 were allotted to Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh under Section 21 (1) of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Punjab Act') under the original consolidation scheme. On 24.12.1985, IP nos. 2 to 4 purchased 1 bigha 15 bwas of land each of Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 from Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh, sons of Sh.Deep Chand, vide three separate registered sale deeds dated 24.12.1985 Ex.IP2W2/3, 4 & 5 after having obtained No Objection Certificate from the Consolidation Officer and possession was also taken of the land on the same day. On 20.05.1988, the Consolidation Officer amended the Consolidation Scheme by extending the 'Phirni' of two sides of village Mundka covering 92 bighas 8 biswas encompassing therein the said khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9. On 15.06.1988, LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 28/38 Settlement Officer granted approval to said amended Consolidation Scheme. Vide order dated 24.07.1989 Ex.IP2W2/6, over land bearing Khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9, plot nos. 1009, 1010 and 1011 were carved out and plot no.1009 was allotted to Sh. Hari Singh, plot no. 1010 to Sh. Om Prakash and plot no. 1011 to Sh. Krishan Kumar/IP No.5 and plot no.1011 after withdrawing the double land of the above allottees.
49. Sh. R.S. Rana, Counsel for IP nos. 2 to 4 further submitted that on 31.10.1989, the above Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh challenged the amendment Scheme dated 20.05.1988/15.06.1988 and order dated 24.07.1989 by filing Revision petition nos. 215/1989 and 216/1989 before the Financial Commissioner, who set aside the above orders vide order dated 31.10.1989 Ex. IP8-11/W1/13 in LAC No. 31- A/2010 and remanded back to Settlement Officer. Another Revision Petition bearing no. 252/1989 Ex. IP2-11/W-15 in LAC No. 31-A/10 was filed by Vendors Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh for quashing of order dated 24.07.1989 along with IP no.5 and IP Nos. 8 to 11 in LAC No. 31-A/10. On 23.02.1990, IP nos. 2 to 4 also filed Revision petition no. 18/90-CA before Financial Commissioner challenging the orders dated 20.05.1988, 15.06.1988 and 24.07.1989. On 08.11.1990 Financial Commissioner pleased to adjourn the petition sine-die on the ground that a writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the order dated 31.10.1989. This order was also challenged by Sh.Gulshan Kumar vide CWP no. 3250/1989 and Hon'ble High Court remanded back to Financial Commissioner to decide the same after granting hearing to all concerned. On 29.10.1992, LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 29/38 Financial Commissioner decided all the three cases and held that Sh.Krishan Kumar - IP No.5 cannot be included in the amended Scheme vide order dated 29.10.1992. On 11.01.1993, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh filed CWP No. 348/1999 agaist the order dated 29.10.1992 against the amended Consolidation Scheme for stay of above said orders. IP No.5 also challenged the said order vide CWP No. 500/1993. On 26.06.1995, IP nos. 2 to 4 filed an application no. 18/1992-CA new No. 180/95-CA for disposal of earlier filed Revision petition on account of fresh development of additional ground with regard to 'Phirni' land to various Haqdars. However, Financial Commissioner on 26.06.1995 adjourned it Sine-die as writ petitions pending in the Hon'ble High Court. Vide order dated 26.12.1996 Ex. A-11, Consolidation Officer allotted plot no. 1011, 4 bigha 1 biswa to Sh.Atma Ram, which was originally alloted to Sh.Krishan Kumar/IP No.5 in lieu of Khasra no. 26/9/1, 25/8/2 and 25/9/1 (West).
50. Sh. R.S. Rana, Counsel for IP nos. 2 to 4 further submitted that IP nos. 2 to 4 had all along for over 14 years since 24.12.1985 been in possession of the land in dispute and were shocked when on 21.11.1999 the IP No.1 accompanied by his henchmen indulged in forcible dispossession of IP nos. 2 to 4. Several complaints were made to DCP, SDM, Human Right Commission Ex. IP2W2/41 to Ex. IP2W2/45 and a case was registered under Section 448/506/380/365 IPC at PS Nangloi and Sh. Atma Ram/IP No.1 remained on bail. IP nos. 2 to 4 also filed civil suit bearing no. 2645/1989 against Sh. Atma Ram, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh for permanent injunction as they purchased LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 30/38 the land. On 06.12.1999, Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant interim stay in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4. Interim order was confirmed on 05.12.2000. Thereafter, suit was adjourned Sine-die. IP nos. 2 to 4 have proved the documents Ex. IP2W2/33 & 34. Sh. R.S. Rana further submitted that the possession was well settled as proved on record by MTNL documents, other documents and electricity documents proved on record as Ex. IP2W2/7 to 26.
51. Sh. R.S. Rana, Counsel for IP nos. 2 to 4 further submitted that on 10.02.2000, IP nos. 2 to 4 when learnt about the order dated 26.12.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer challenged the same by way of CWP NO. 368/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court and same was decided by the Hon'ble High Court and directed that remedy against the order dated 26.12.1996 lies under Section 42 of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and therefore, the petition was withdrawn. On 27.07.2000, IP nos. 2 to 4 filed Revision petition no. 145/2000 against Sh. Atma Ram/IP No.1, Sh. Surjan Sngh and Sh.Raghbir Singh against order dated 26.12.1996 and the amended Consolidation scheme dated 20.05.1988/ 15.06.1988, which has been adjourned Sine-die. On 02.07.2007, the Writ petition (C) No. 5815/2000 of IP nos. 2 to 4 was allowed vide order dated 02.07.2007 by Hon'ble High Court, whereby Financial Commissioner was directed to decide the revision petition. On 30.04.2009, the Revision Petition no. 201/07 was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed as become infructuous by operation of law since land has been acquired vide award no.02/2008-09. The possessionof the land was taken by LAC LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 31/38 on 16.01.2008. Writ petition no. 500/1993 also filed by IP No.5 Sh. Krishan Kumar against the order of Financial Commissioner of dated 29.10.1992 and for restoration of allotment.
52. Sh. R.S. Rana, Counsel for the IP nos. 2 to 4 further submitted that IP nos. 2 to 4 have proved record by way of Massavi and Aks Sizra, both coloured as Ex.IP2W2/47. He further submitted that despite stay orders from various courts, the order dated 26.12.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer, although the matter was subjudice which is in utter disregard and in a contemptuous manner in collusion with Sh.Atma Ram, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh. The claim of IP No.1 is false, frivolous, forged and liable to be dismissed. Sh. Narender Singh Lakra, witness of IP No.1 contradicts his statement when in witness box regarding possession. He admitted that a civil suit was filed having no. 1989/2006 for possession but the fact in issue regarding possession was struck of by the curt on admission of LRs of IP No.1. IP No.1 has not proved the fact that the possession of land in dispute was given by him to the revenue staf. IP nos. 2 to 4 have proved their right, title and interest and possession of the land in dispute. IP nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchaser of land much prior to the allotment and there is no violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The land in dispute was never in possession of Revenue Authority or Gaon Sabha. Therefore, compensation may be granted to IP nos. 2 to 4. IP No.5 Sh.Krishan Kumar has no right to claim compensation as he has not filed any claim before this Court and also his plot has already been cancelled.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 32/38
53. Sh. R.S. Rana, Counsel for the IP nos. 2 to 4 relied on the judgments; Smt.Swarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Others, 1997 III AD SC (C) 708, AIR 1966 SC 2823; S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853; Meghmala and Ors. vs. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383; Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470; Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jaganath (Dead) LRs & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 853; C.B. Aggarwal vs. P. Krishna Kapoor, AIR 1995 Delhi 154; Swaran vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668; Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernades vs.Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370; Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Satyender Singh v. Gulab Sigh, 2012 (129) DRJ 128; Satyabadi Pradhan v. Dayanidhi Pradhan AIR 903 Orissa. Finally, Sh. R.S. Rana submitted that IP nos. 2 to 4 proved their genuine claim and possession of acquired land in dispute. Therefore, IP nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for the entire compensation.
54. I have gone through the entire record, written submissions and documents proved on record. After giving thoughtful consideration, the reference with regard to entitlement of compensation to the tune of Rs.32,62,372/- which as per Naksha Muntajamin at Sl. no. 55 shown in the name of Sh. Atma Rama measuring 4 bigha 1 biswa of plot no. 1011. The initial onus was on Sh. Atma Ram/IP No.1, who died and LRs were substituted. Sh. Narender Lakra son of Sh.Atma Ram appeared in witness box and proved his allotment letter Ex. A-24 dated 14.09.1999. It is proved on record that order of allotment has been challenged by IP No.5 LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 33/38 Sh.Krishan Kumar and also by IP nos. 2 to 4 before the Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Financial Commissioner. On the other hand, IP nos. 2 to 4 vide Ex. IP2W2/3 to 5 proved the duly registered sale deeds with regard to Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 in respect of total land measuring 5 bigha 5 biswa from Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh. They further established on record that No Objection Certificate was taken from the Consolidation Officer and possession as also taken by them. These above two Khasras were allotted as per Section 21 of Punjab Act to Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh i.e. the allotment is during consolidation proceedings after surrendering of their original land. IP No.1 as well as IP No.5 have not challenged the sale deeds and on the contrary they have admitted the sale deeds in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4.
55. It establishes that Consolidation Authorities were well aware of the sale purchase of the land of Khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9 by Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4. The sale deeds were duly registered. It further establishes that the consolidation authorities raised no objection in regard to the sale and purchase of the land. Therefore, it is proved on record the the sale deeds Ex. IP2W2/3 to 5 were duly acceded by the Consolidation Authorities and right, title, interest with regard to Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9 transferred legally in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4 in respect of 1 bigha 15 biswa land.
56. It is further establishes on record that Consolidation Officer amended the Consolidation Scheme whereby extended the 'Phirni' (outer boundaries) of village Mundka on two sides covering 92 bigha 8 biswa which also LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 34/38 covers the land purchased by IP nos. 2 to 4 of Khasra nos. 67/2 and 67/9.
57. I have gone through the order dated 24.07.1989 Ex. IP2W2/6. The allotments are mentioned at Sl. NO. 49 in the name of Sh. Surjan Singh showing some other Khasra number including Khasra no. 67/2 and 67/9 and alloted other Khasra numbers 3/1, 4/1/11, 6/22/2 etc. This order further alloted plot Khasra no. 1011 to Sh.Krishan Kumar which is admitted on record that land stands cancelled due to the fact and reasons mentioned in the order. The cancellation in favour of IP No.5 was challenged but till today it has not been reversed by any court or authority.
58. It is pertinent to mention here that the amended Scheme dated 20.05.1988/15.06.1988 and order dated 24.07.1989 was challenged by Sh. Hari Singh, Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh, both the Vendors, but it was remanded back. Thereafter, Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh preferred Revision Petition and vide order dated 29.10.1992, it was held that IP No.5 cannot be included in the amended Scheme. A writ petition was also filed having no. 500/1993 but there is nothing proved on record with regard to order dated 24.07.1989 Ex. IP2W2/6, it remains as legal order of Revenue authorities. It is pertinent to mention here that IP No.5 before this Court has not filed any claim. However, he has led evidence. Law is well settled that evidence shall follow the pleadings. However, in the present case, there are no pleadings. Therefore, evidence is of no consequence. Evidence led by respondent no.5 cannot be read and relied in these peculiar circumstances.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 35/38
59. The documents proved on record especially the orders of the Revenue authorities and the litigation between IP No.1 Sh. Atma Ram and his LRs and IP nos. 2 to 4 before the Revenue Authorities and before Hon'ble High Court. Even Sh. SurjanSingh and Sh. Raghbir Singh also filed various proceedings before Revenue authorities.
60. The allotment order dated 26.12.1996 Ex. A-11 was challenged initially by the IP No.5 Sh. Krishan Kumar before the Hon'ble High Court and IP nos. 2 to 4 also challenged when they acquired the knowledge as per record. However, another important fact proved on record that since the purchase of the acquired land in dispute, the IP nos. 2 to 4 remained in physical possession as established by bunch of documents proved on record and proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in a Civil Suit filed by IP nos. 2 to 4 for permanent injunction. On 06.12.1999 in suit no. 2645/99 interim order were also passed in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4. Similarly, IP No.1 also approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of suit for possession. It establishes that the possession of IP No.1 was doubtful.
61. Another important fact is that a criminal case vide FIR No. 1221/99 registered against the IP No.1 under Section 448/506/380/365 IPC and matter is subjudice before the criminal court. The documents regarding carrying on business after the purchase of the acquired land by IP nos. 2 to 4 are established and proved on the basis of telephone bills Ex. IP2W2/7 to 25 and insurance cover papers. On the other hand, IP No.1 failed to prove on record any record of his possession in the year 1985 till acquisition of the land.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 36/38 Khatonies and Aks Sizra filed on record but they failed to establish the real physical possession at any point of time. IP nos. 2 to 4 have knocked the door of other authority including Revenue Authorities, Civil Court, Criminal Court and Hon'ble High Court. The Revenue Authorities acquiesced the sale and purchase of the acquired land during consolidation proceedings by the original Khatedar Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh in favour of IP nos. 2 to 4 vide valid legal sale deeds. Possession was also established since 1985 till acquisition of the land.
62. In my considered opinion, on the basis of above observation and discussion, Sh. Atma Ram and his LRs failed to establish their legal right to claim the entire compensation. IP No.5, who has not filed any claim before this Court and his cancellation by the Revenue Authorities of the plot Khasra no. 1011 holds good as on today also not entitled for any compensation. IP nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchaser of the acquired land in dispute and proved that plot Khasra no.1011 was during the Consolidation proceedings carved out from their purchased land of Khasra No. 67/2 and 67/9. Registered sale deeds established their right, title and entitlement for legal claim of compensation of acquired land in dispute coupled with their continuous physical possession on the basis of the documents established and proved on record and the litigation between the parties up to the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, IP nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to entire compensation of acquired land in dispute.
LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 37/38 ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
63. In view of my observation and findings on issue no.1, it is held that IP nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for the entire compensation amount of Rs.59,68,895/- pertaining to land measuring 4 Bigha and 1 Biswa in Khasra No. 1011 shown at Sl. No. 55 in the Naksha Muntzamin.
64. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to LAC (West).
65. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
66. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 18th August, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 18.08.2017 LAC No. 29A/10/08 (New No.64/16) Union of India vs. Atma Ram & Ors. 38/38