Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs . Gaon Sabha, Palam & Ors. on 14 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ, SOUTH WEST, NEW
DELHI
LAC No: 21/11/06
In the matter of
Union of India Vs. Gaon Sabha, Palam & Ors.
1. G.S. Palam through B.D.O. Delhi.
2. Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Gokal
3. Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Gokal
4. Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ran Singh
5. Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Ran Singh
6. Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Ran Singh
7. Suresh S/o Sh. Sis Ram
8. Vijay Pal S/o Sh. Sis Ram
9. Pradeep S/o Sh. Sis Ram
10.Ajit S/o Sh. Sis Ram
11.Karambir S/o Sh. Sis Ram
12.Smt. Ram Kaur (now deceased)
(Through L.Rs already on record as I.P. No. 7 to 11)
AWARD No : 162/1986-1987
VILLAGE : Mirzapur
Filed on : 08.02.2006
Reserved on: 13.09.2011
Decided on: 14.09.2011
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Vide Award No. 162/86-87, a vast tract of land of revenue estate of village Mirzapur was acquired for the planned development of Delhi.
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 1 of page 12
3. Land measuring 10 bigha and 10 biswa comprising in Khasra No. 21//24 (2-11), 22//4 (6-01) and 5 (1-18) which is the subject matter of this reference was also acquired vide acquisition proceedings noted above.
4. Collector determined a compensation of Rs. 1,96,782.08 payable for the acquisition of the land in question.
5. This compensation was not given to anybody because the recorded owner of the land in question is Gaon Sabha but I.P. No. 2 to 12 filed objections against the release of compensation in favour of Gaon Sabha.
6. Therefore, the Collector referred this reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of disputes between the I.Ps to this court.
7. Claim of Gaon Sabha is that being the Bhumidar / owner of the suit land, no other person has any right, title or interest in its land. Therefore, the Gaon Sabha claimed that the entire compensation be released in favour of Gaon Sabha.
8. On the other hand, the case of I.P. no. 2 to 12 is that Late Sh. Gokal was in cultivatory and physical possession of land in question without the consent of recorded Bhumidar i.e. Gaon Sabha since 1970. It is stated that possession of late Shri Gokal was open and continuous upto the time of the acquisition of the land by LAC.
9. IP No. 2 to 12 have stated that the Gaon Sabha never raised any objection to the continuous cultivatory possession of IP No.2 to 12 over land in question since 1969-70 and never filed any ejectment proceedings against late Shri Gokal within the stipulated period of three years as provided under Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Hence, the possession of late Shri Gokal became absolute, who acquired the bhumidari rights as per provisions of Section 85 of LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 2 of page 12 DLR Act.
10. It is further stated that the revenue documents prior to 1983 show the cultivatory possession of late Shri Gokal. However, due to verbal instructions issued by the officials of the revenue department, the entries in khasra girdawari were not made after 1983.
11. Therefore, IP No. 2 to 12 claimed the entire compensation.
12. On behalf of Gaon Sabha, khasra girdawaris w.e.f. 1981-82 till 1985-86 were filed on record which were exhibited as Ex. DW1/4 collectively.
13. On behalf of IP No. 2 to 12, Shri Hoshiyar Singh son of late Shri Gokal entered in the witness box as IP2W1. He deposed similar facts as were deposed by him in his claim petition. This witness exhibited khasra girdawaris from the year, 1970-71 upto 1984-85 which have been exhibited as Ex. IP No.2/4 to 18 respectively.
14. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not made any efforts to get his name recorded in the khatoni as this work was looked after by his father. He further stated that he has not filed any document on record to show that the physical possession of the land was taken over from him by the Government. He denied the suggestion that he and his father in connivance with the revenue staff got certain entries made in the revenue record to usurp Gaon Sabha land / compensation. The witness denied the suggestion that no suit for declaration of bhumidari was ever filed because he had nothing to show that he was in possession of the land in question. Rather, he stated that it was the duty of the patwari of the area to record his possession. He stated that he did not go to the patwari to get his name recroded in the khasra girdawari.
15. Other witnesses examined on behalf of IP No. 2 to 12 are Shri Mool Chand, IP2W2, Shri Randhir Singh, IP2W3 and Shri Raj Devi, IP2W4.
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 3 of page 12 The evidence by way of affidavits filed by all the three witnesses were verbatim same. These witnesses deposed that they had seen late Shri Gokal cultivating the land in question since 1969-70.
16. In cross-examination, Shri Mool Chand, IP2W2 stated that it is wrongly recorded in khasra girdawari that land in question was banjar kadim. He denied the suggestion that the land was not cultivated by anyone. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being a friend of Shri Hoshiyar Singh.
17. IP2W3, Shri Randhir Singh stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware of khasra number of the land in question. He was not even remembering khasra number of his land which was acquired vide same award. He did not produce any document to show his cultivatory possession on the adjoining land of Shri Gokal. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being a friend of Shri Hoshiyar Singh.
18. A perusal of khasra girdawaris filed on record by IP No. 2 to 12 reveals the following: -
S Year Kh. A Re Clas Remarks
. No. r cor s of
N e de land
o a d
. ow
ne
r
1 1975 21/ ( Ga Banj Nil
. -76 24 2 on ar
- Sa Kadi
1 bh n
1 a
)
2 -do- 22/ ( - -do- -do-
. 4 6 do-
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 4 of page 12
-
1
)
3 -do- 5 ( - -do- -do-
. 1 do-
-
1
8
)
4 1976 21/ ( - -do- -do-
. -77 24 2 do-
-
1
1
)
5 -do- 22/ ( - -do- -do-
. 4 6 do-
-
1
)
6 -do- 5 ( - -do- -do-
. 1 do-
-
1
8
)
7 1977 21/ ( - -do- -do-
. -78 24 2 do-
-
1
1
)
8 -do- 22/ ( - -do- -do-
. 4 6 do-
-
1
)
9 -do- 5 ( - -do- -do-
. 1 do-
-
1
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 5 of page 12
8
)
1 1978 21/ ( - Crop Unauthorized
0 -79 24 2 do- whea possession of
- t Sh. Gokal
.
1
1
)
1 -do- 22/ ( - Crop Unauthorized
1 4 6 do- whea possession of
- t Sh. Gokal
.
1
)
1 -do- 5 ( - Crop Unauthorized
2 1 do- whea possession of
- t Sh. Jage
.
1
8
)
1 1979 21/ ( - Crop Unauthorized
3 -80 24 2 do- s possession of
- Jwar Sh. Gokal
.
1 and
1 Gan
) dam
1 -do- 22/ ( - Crop Nil
4 4 6 do- Gan
- dam
.
1
)
1 -do- 5 ( - Crop Nil
5 1 do- Gan
- dam
.
8
)
1 1980 21/ ( - Banj Unauthorized
6 -81 24 2 do- ar possession of
- Kadi Sh. Gokal
.
1 m
1
)
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 6 of page 12
1 -do- 22/ ( - Banj Nil
7 4 6 do- ar
- Kadi
.
1 m
)
1 -do- 5 ( - Banj Nil
8 1 do- ar
- Kadi
.
8 m
)
1 1981 21/ ( - Not Nil
9 -82 24 2 do- trans
- lated
.
1
1
)
2 -do- 22/ ( - Not Nil
0 4 6 do- trans
- lated
.
1
)
2 -do- 5 ( - Not Nil
1 1 do- trans
- lated
.
1
8
)
2 1982 21/ ( - Crop Not translated
2 -83 24 2 do- Whe
- at
.
1
1
)
2 -do- 22/ ( - Crop Not translated
3 4 6 do- Whe
- at
.
1
)
2 -do- 5 ( - Crop Not translated
4 1 do- Whe
- at
.
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 7 of page 12
1
8
)
2 1983 21/ ( - Jadid Nil
5 -84 24 2 do-
-
.
1
1
)
2 -do- 22/ ( - Jadid Nil
6 4 6 do-
-
.
1
)
2 -do- 5 ( - Jadid Nil
7 1 do-
-
.
1
8
)
2 1984 21/ ( - Banj Nil
8 -85 24 2 do- ar
-
.
1
1
)
2 -do- 22/ ( - Banj Nil
9 4 6 do- ar
-
.
1
)
3 -do- 5 ( - Banj Nil
0 1 do- ar
-
.
1
8
)
19. Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act provides that a person in possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 8 of page 12 shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha as the case may be.
20. Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act provides that if a suit is not brought under Section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed during the period of limitation provided for filing of the suit or execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall become a Bhumidar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha.
21. Schedule 1 prepared under Section 185 DLR Act provides that period of limitation for filing a suit under Section 84 of the Act is 3 years from the first of July following the date of occupation.
22. Therefore, to succeed in their claim for having become Bhumidar of land in question by adverse possession I.P. No. 2 to 12 were required to prove that they were in possession of land in question for a period of continuous 3 years before its possession by the LAC.
23. Case of I.P. No. 2 to 12 is that the Patwari did not record their possession after 1981-82 on verbal instructions of the ADM not to record adverse possession on the land of Gaon Sabha. I.P. No. 2 to 12 have argued that they were in possession of land in question in the earlier years but admittedly the Gaon Sabha did not file any ejectment proceedings against them. Therefore, the presumption is that the entries made in the Khasra Girdawaris where remarks column is nil and possession of I.P. No. 2 to 12 is not shown is wrong. It is also argued that for some years the Khasra Girdwaris are showing cultivation of crops viz. Jawar, Wheat and Gandam and in the other years, the Khasra Girdwaris are showing the land as Banjar Kadim which cannot be true. Therefore, I.P. no. 2 to 12 have argued that even if their possession is not shown continuously for a LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 9 of page 12 period of 3 years over land in question before its possession by LAC even then they are deemed to be in possession and are entitled to receive compensation. It is further argued that in case this court is not inclined to grant 100% compensation atleast 60% of compensation be given to I.P. No. 2 to 12 and 40% of compensation be given to Gaon Sabha.
24. On the other hand, counsel for the Gaon Sabha has argued that I.P. No. 2 to 12 have not initiated any proceedings as contemplated in schedule 1 under Section 185 Sr. No. 4 for declaring Bhumidari rights in their favour. It is further argued that in case the Patwari was not recording the possession of I.P. No. 2 to 12 in that event they should have initiated proceedings as were initiated by the petitioner in the case of Sh.Ram Swaroop Kathuria Vs. Administrator of U.T. Of Delhi:90(2001) DLT 773 DB. It is further argued that the fact that in Khasra Girdwaries, 3 years prior to possession by LAC, the possession of I.P. No. 2 to 12 is not shown in remarks column proves that I.P. No. 2 to 12 were not in possession at that time.
25. It is further argued that it is the recorded owner who is to be given the compensation. Reliance is placed on Sri Chand Vs. LAC:118(2005) DLT 320 DB where further reliance is made on the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, RFA No. 369/02.
26. Perusal of pleadings, evidence on record and arguments of the Ld. Counsels for parties shows that late Sh. Gokal was in adverse possession of land in question in the year 1978-79. In the year 1979-80, late Sh. Gokal was only in adverse possession of 2 bighas and 11 biswa of land in khasra no. 21/24. He was not in adverse possession for khasra no. 22/4 (6-1) and khasra no. 5 (1-8). Same is the position for the year 1980-81. Admittedly, w.e.f. 1983-84 late Sh. Gokal was not in adverse possession of the land in question. Therefore, 3 LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 10 of page 12 years prior to its possession by the Collector, late Sh. Gokal was not in possession of land in question.
27. In these circumstances, I.P. No. 2 to 12 cannot get any benefit of section 84 & 85 of DLR Act.
28. There is no deeming provision or provision for presumptions in DLR Act that in case one party was in adverse possession in a given year and Gaon Sabha had not filed any ejectment proceeding and in the subsequent year possession of said party is not shown in Khasra Girdawari in that event also adverse possession of said party shall be presumed.
29. To succeed, I.P. No. 2 to 12 were duty bound to prove continuous adverse possession of late Sh. Gokal over land in question for 3 years prior to its possession by the Collector. I.P. No. 2 to 12 have failed to prove such adverse possession and therefore are not entitled to any relief in this reference. In case the possession of late Sh. Gokul was not recorded by Patwari, he should have taken steps for recording his possession. In absence of recording of possession of Late Sh. Gokul in Khasra Girdawaris, no benefit can be given to IP NO. 2 to 12 even in the absence of any ejectment suit by Gaon Sabha. Relief cannot be given to a party based on conjectures and surmises. Evidence of IP2W2 to 4 is also not trustworthy. They are all interested witnesses. None of them has proved that he was also recorded owner of adjoining land in village Mirzapur. They did not remember their Khasra number or extent of their land holdings. Resultantly, IP no. 2 to 12 have failed to prove the adverse possession of Late Sh. Gokul over land in question for 3 years prior to its possession. No other ground is urged by IP no. 2 to 12 for grant of compensation to them. Therefore, claim of IP no. 2 to 12 fails.
30. Land in question is urbanized under Section 507 of DMC Act.
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 11 of page 12 Notice was served upon Ministry of Urban Development who is successor of Gaon Sabha under Section 150 of DLR Act. However, none came to represent the ministry.
31. An application is filed for impleading DDA as a person interested. Reliance is placed on notification dated 19.08.2002. As per this notification, after urbanisation, land of Gaon Sabha is placed at the disposal of DDA. However, it is not a case where any land is subject matter of dispute. It is only compensation of land which was acquired in the year 1985-86 which is the subject matter of this reference.
32. After notification under Section 507 of DMC Act, in view of Section 150 (3) (a) of DLR Act all movable/immovable assets of Gaon Sabha vest in Centre Government. All suits and proceedings against Gaon Sabha continue against Union of India as provided in Section 150 (3) (d) of DLR Act. Therefore, it is Ministry of Urban Development who would be entitled to receive the compensation.
33. Reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to LAC (SW) and to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development who would be free to take the deposited compensation which is in Bank FDR. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court ( Arun Bhardwaj) on 14th day of September, 2011 Addl. District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
LAC No: 21/11/06 Page 12 of page 12