Delhi District Court
Chandan Sawhney vs Union Of India on 24 December, 2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
DLST010000021998
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 37/2016
FILING No. 2621/1998
CNR No. DLST01-000002-1998
In the matter of :-
1. SUNIL CHAND GOYAL
S/O DARSHAN LAL GOYAL
H. NO. 467, SECTOR-21,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122001
2. PARVINDER SINGH JUNEJA
S/O SH. SURJIT SINGH JUNEJA
R/O C-38, 3RD FLOOR,
LAJPAT NAGAR-III,
NEW DELHI-110024
3. RAHUL AGGARWAL
S/O LALMAN GOEL
R/O VILLA NO. 001,
BESTECH PARK VIEW GRAND,
NAKHROLA KHERI DAULA,
GURUGRAM
4. DEEPAK MITTAL
S/O NATHU RAM MITTAL
R/O 2-3-576/201, BLOCK NO.2,
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 1 of 51 16:46:38 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
DV COLONY, MINISTERS ROAD,
SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA-500003
5. RAVI MITTAL
S/O DEEPAK MITTAL
R/O 2-3-576/201, BLOCK NO.2,
DV COLONY, MINISTERS ROAD,
SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA-500003
6. RAMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL (DECEASED
THROUGH LR'S)
A) KAVITA AGARWAL
W/O LATE RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL
R/O A-302, BALAJI APARTMENTS,
ROHINI, SECTOR-14, DELHI-110085
B) RITESH KUMAR AGARWAL
S/O LATE RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL
R/O A-402, BALAJI APARTMENTS,
ROHINI, SECTOR-14, DELHI-110085
C) DINESH AGARWAL
S/O LATE RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL
R/O A-302, BALAJI APARTMENTS,
ROHINI, SECTOR-14, DELHI-110085
D) SMT. SONIL MITTAL
W/O RAKESH KUMAR MITTAL,
R/O A1/1001, TOWER 1,
10TH FLOOR, PURAVACHAL KINGS COURT,
VINAMRA KHAND GOMTI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226010
7. BHARAT SAWHNEY
S/O K.D. SAWHNEY
R/O F-38/18, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16
Date:
2024.12.24
16:46:50 +0530
Page 2 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
8. PREMCHAND AGGARWAL
S/O SHRI BHOLE RAM AGARWAL
R/O 90/62-A, MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110017
9. CHANDAN SAWHNEY
S/O K.D. SAWHNEY
R/O F-38/18, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057
10. AKASH MITTAL
S/O GIAN CHAND MITTAL
R/O TIGAON ROAD,
TIGAON, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA-122001
11. PARMOD GOEL
S/O TRILOK CHAND
R/O 233A-39, WARD NO.6,
JHUNG MOHALLA, NUH,
MEWAT, HARYANA-122107
12. TRILOK CHAND
S/O MURARI LAL
R/O 233A-39, WARD NO.6,
JHUNG MOHALLA, NUH,
MEWAT, HARYANA-122107.
13. SUNIL SINGHAL
S/O HARISH SINGHAL
R/O H.NO. 713,
SECTOR-46,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002
14. RAJINDER PRASAD GOYAL (SINCE. DECEASED
THROUGH LR'S)
A) SMT. CHANDER KALA GOEL - WIFE
B) MR. PANKAJ GOEL - SON
C) MRS NEELAM SINGHAL-DAUGHTER
D) MRS. CHAHAT RANI - DAUGHTER
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24
Page 3 of 51 16:47:21 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
ALL R/O H.NO 17, 2ND FLOOR,
BLOCK-H, SOUTH CITY-II,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA, 122018
15. PAYAL RAHEJA SHARWAN
D/O SH. SHARWAN RAHEJA
R/O M-25, SOUTH CITY-I,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA, 122001
16. SHYAM SUNDER AGGARWAL
S/O LATE SH. SITA RAM AGGARWAL
R/O A-73, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110025
17. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI
WD/O LATE SH. SWAROOP SINGH
R/O H. NO. 28, JASOLA VIHAR
POCKET-1
NEW DELHI-110025
18. OM PRAKASH
S/O LATE SH. SWAROOP SINGH
R/O H.NO. 26, JASOLA VIHAR
POCKET-1
NEW DELHI-110025
19. SH. PHIRE RAM
S/O LATE SH. SWAROOP SINGH
R/O H. NO. 28, JASOLA VIHAR
POCKET-1
NEW DELHI-110025
20. SH. VINOD KUMAR
S/O LATE SH. SWAROOP SINGH
R/O H. NO 60, JASOLA VIHAR
POCKET-2
NEW DELHI-110025
21. SH. PRAMOD KUMAR
S/O LATE SH. SWAROOP SINGH
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
16:47:27
Page 4 of 51 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
R/O H.NO 123, JASOLA VIHAR
POCKET-2
NEW DELHI-110025
22. SH. HARJEET SINGH
S/O LATE SH. JAI CHAND
R/O H.NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
23. SH. MAHENDER SINGH
S/O LATE SH. JAI CHAND
R/O H.NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
24. SH. SURENDER SINGH
S/O LATE SH. JAI CHAND
R/O H.NO, 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
25. SMT. BEENA
WD/O RAVINDER
R/O H.NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
26. RAHUL
S/O LATE SH. RAVINDER
R/O H.NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
27. SAHIL
S/O LATE SH. RAVINDER
R/O H.NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24
16:47:40 +0530
Page 5 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
28. MS. AARJU
D/O LATE SH. RAVINDER
R/O H. NO. 252, KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
29. SMT. HARBATI
W/O SARDAR SINGH
D/O LATE SH JAI CHAND
R/O VILLAGE DATAWALL
DISTRICT DADRI, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH
30. SMT. SHAKUNTLA
D/O LATE JAI CHAND
W/O LATE SINGH RAJ
R/O VILLAGE DATAWALI,
DISTRICT DADRI.
GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH
31. SURESH
W/O GAJENDER SINGH
D/O LATE SH. JAI CHAND
R/O VILLAGE LAKADPUR,
DISTRICT FARIDABAD,
HARYANA
32. SH. RAM RATTAN VERMA
(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS)
I) SH. NARENDER SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI RAM RATTAN VERMA
R/O B-11, FRIENDS COLONY WEST,
DELHI-110065
II) SH. BIJENDER SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI RAM RATTAN VERMA
R?O B-11, FRIENDS COLONY WEST,
DELHI-110065
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 Date: 2024.12.24
16:47:46 +0530
Page 6 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
33. SH ISHWAR CHAND
S/O LATE SHRI SURAJMAL
R/0 G-21, SARITA VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110044
34. SH JAGAT SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI SURAJMAL
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
35. SH. JAGDEV SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI HARI CHAND
R/O E-15/B EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI-110065
36. SH. INDER SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI HARI CHAND
R/O E-167 EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI-110065
37. SH. MAHESH KUMAR
S/O LATE SHRI HARI CHAND
R/O E-15/B EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI-110065
38. SH. BHAGAT SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI HARI CHAND
R/O E-15/B EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI-110065
39. SH. JEET RAM
S/O LATE SH. RAM CHAND
R/O VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
40. SH. JAGPAL SINGH (JP SINGH)
S/O LATE SH. RAM CHAND
R/O VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 7 of 51 16:47:53 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
41. SH. JAGGI
S/O LATE SH. RAM CHAND
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
42. SH. HARPAL SINGH (NOW DECEASED THROUGH
LR'S)
A) RAJESH KUMAR
B) SANJAY KUMAR
C) SUMIT SINGH
D) KAVITA
ALL R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
43. SH. DHANPAL SINGH
S/O LATE SH. RAM CHAND
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
44. SH. SATPAL
S/O LATE SH. HANSA
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
45. SH. SUDEH KUMAR
S/O LATE SH. HANSA
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
46. SH. UMESH
S/O LATE SH. HANSA
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
LAC NO. 37/16 16:47:58
+0530
Page 8 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
47. MS. MEERA
D/O LATE SH. HANSA
R/O VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
48. M.S SUGAN
D/O LATE SH. HANSA
R/O VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
49. SMT. JHUNNI
W/O SH. PAWAN KUMAR
(PREDECEASED S/O RAM CHAND)
R/O KUAN MOHALLA
VILLAGE TUGHLAKABAD
NEW DELHI-110044
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH LAC/ADM SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
D.M OFFICE, OLD GARGI COLLEGE BUILDING
24, NATIONAL PARK RD,
LAJPAT NAGAR IV
NEW DELHI-110024
2. WILD LIFE SANCTUARY
THROUGH CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KAMLA NEHRU RIDGE,
NEAR MALKA GANJ PETROL PUMP,
DELHI-110007
...RESPONDENTS
Reference received on : 10.03.1998
Date of Institution : 10.03.1998
Date on which order was reserved : 03.09.2024
Date of Award : 24.12.2024
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 Date: 2024.12.24
16:48:04 +0530
Page 9 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the
petitioner, who have sought enhancement of the monetary award
given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the
assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on
the lower side without considering the relevant factors for
correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The
reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on
10.03.1998.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant
dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 02.04.1996
(iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 06.05.1996
(iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 02.04.1996
(iii) For Project: P.D.D. Viz Wild Life Sanctuary
(iv) Date of possession taken: 04.07.1988
(v) Location/Name of Village: Tughlakabad
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 1/97-98
& date of Award: 05.12.1997
(vii) Market value of land held by LAC: 1,23,000/- per bigha
(viii) Date of reference petition to LAC: 18.12.1997
(ix) Petition referred to Court on: 10.03.1998
3. The present reference under Section 18(2) of the L.A.
Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of
land situated in Village Tughlakabad which was acquired for the
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2024.12.24
Page 10 of 51
16:48:10 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
public purpose of 'P.D.D. Viz Wild Life Sanctuary'. The land in
question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 1/97-98 dated
05.12.1997 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4
of the Act dated 02.04.1996 which was followed up by
notification under Section 6 of the Act on 06.05.1996.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after
considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.1/97-98 by
determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @
Rs.1,23,000/- per bigha.
5. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they
preferred a reference application under Section 18(2) of the Act,
1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference
filed by the petitioners along with statement under Section 19(2)
of the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land
Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of
the petitioners. As per their claim the petitioners are the owners
of the land of Khasra No. 4098/1678 measuring 63 Bighas and 1
Biswas situated within the revenue estate of Village
Tughlakabad, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi to the extent of their
respective shares. The whole of the applicants'/petitioners'
respective shares in the abovesaid Khasra No.4098/1678 (63-1)
has since been acquired by the respondents for construction of
wild life sanctuary by issuing Notification No.
8.7(34)/90-168/LA/6142 dated 2.4.1996 under Section 4
followed by Notification Nos. P.7(34)/90-L & B/LA/7431 and
P.7(34)/90-L&B/ LA/7433 dated 6.5.1996 under Section 6 and
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24
16:48:16 +0530
Page 11 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By order dated 19.9.1996
payment of 80% of estimated compensation amount was released
in favour of the applicants/petitioners and other co-owners of the
above said land. The LAC has now passed the Award, under
reference, and has thereby assessed the Compensation payable
for the acquisition of the above-said land of Khasra
No.4098/1678 (63-1). The applicants/petitioners have not
accepted the compensation amount as offered under the award in
question for being grossly inadequate, and as and when they
accept the said compensation amount hereafter the same shall be
under protest and subject to their right to receive proper
compensation through the Competent Civil Court on this
reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
7. The compensation as assessed and offered under the
Award under reference is inadequate. The award under reference
itself discloses that Village Tughlakabad and the land thereof has
been urbanised vide Notification No. 3-2(49)/65-LSG dated
3.6.1966 i.e. nearby thirty years before the relevant Notification
under Section 4 dated 02.04.1996. The urbanisation of the land of
Village Tughlakabad led to alround development activity around
the land of Khasra No.4098/1678 in question, and in the
immediate vicinity of the said land, a huge Residential Colony
called Kant Enclave has come up. The other residential and
commercial Complexes including huge Hotel, etc. have come up
near the land of Khasra No. 4098/1678 in question. The
potentiality of residential as well as commercial use of the land of
Village Tughlakabad was recognized in the earlier Award No.
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24
16:48:22 +0530
Page 12 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
4/1994-95 as well which led to a Reference No.80/94 under
Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act wherein by judgment
dated 28.3.1995 Shri Kuldip Singh, Addl. District Judge, Delhi,
fixed the market value of the land acquired in that case Rs.223/-
per square yard. The above-said market value Rs.223/- per square
yard was fixed as on 01.06.1992 on which date the relevant
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
was issued for the land of Village Tughlakabad acquired
thereunder. During the period of about four years from
01.06.1992 to 02.04.1996, there has been tremendous escalation
in price/market value of landed property, a factor which has been
wholly ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector. In the
abovesaid judgment dated 28.03.1995 the market value of the
land involved in that case was fixed Rs.2,24,857.60 Paisa per
Bigha as on 01.06.1992, the market value of the land of Khasra
No.4098/1678 has been fixed by the LAC as on 02.04.1996 @
Rs.1,23,000/- per Bigha only. The land of Khasra No.4098/1678
(63-1) in question has a better location and higher potentiality for
residential and commercial use than the land acquired under
Award No.4/94-95. Considering the prevailing market rate of
potential building sites in the vicinity of the land of khasra no.
4098/1678 in question and considering the fact that the
residential colony called Kant Enclave which adjoins the land of
Khasra No.4098/1678 and other Complexes have already brought
the amenities of pucca roads, light and water near the land of
Khasra No.4098/1678 in question, the market value of the said
land of Khasra No.1098/1678, is, in fact, more than Rs.5,000/-
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16
2024.12.24
16:48:28
+0530
Page 13 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
per square yard, which has been claimed by the above-named
applicants. The award in question offers grossly inadequate
compensation for the applicants/petitioners share in the land of
Khasra No.4098/1678 (63-1) in question, which deserves to be
enhanced with all consequential benefits in Solatium, additional
Solatium, interest etc.
8. In its written statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed
the claim for enhancement in compensation. It is stated that in
this case the land was acquired at the instance of Flood Central
Department, which has also to make the payment for acquisition
of land and Flood Central Department is a necessary and proper
party for complete adjudication of the instant proceedings. The
correctness of the khasra numbers, their area and the extent of
share of the petitioner therein admitted only to the extent as
specified by LAC in his statement furnished under Section 19 of
the LA Act. It is also stated that the land in question is not
surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can
only be used for agriculture. It is further stated that the land in
dispute is Gair Mumkin Pahad and not suitable for residential
purpose; and that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly
assessed the compensation of the acquired land. Respondent No.l,
thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
9. Written statement is also filed on behalf of the
respondent no.2/Forest Department. It is stated therein that the
present reference may be rejected as the same is bad for mis-
joinder of necessary party. There is no cause of action in favour
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
LAC NO. 37/16 16:48:35
Page 14 of 51 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
of the applicants/petitioners and the present reference petition
may be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
10. No replication has been filed to the written statement of
the respondents.
11. Vide order dated 12.12.2017, following issues were
framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
1) What was the market value of the acquired land on the
date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on the parties.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation for the acquired land? OPP
3) Relief.
12. During the proceedings, application on behalf of
respondent/UOI under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151
CPC for framing of additional issues was filed, which was
dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Ld.
Predecessor of this court. However, some additional issues were
framed by the undersigned by exercising power under Order XIV
Rule 5 CPC, which are as under:
"2A. Whether the original petitioners were legal and
rightful owners being subsequent purchasers/assignees
of the acquired land? OPP
2B. Whether the original petitioners had locus to file
the present petition being assignees of the acquired land
vide assessment deeds dated 14.05.1996, which were
allegedly executed after the date of notification under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on
parties
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
LAC NO. 37/16 16:48:41
+0530
Page 15 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
2C. Whether the present petitioners being subsequent
assignees can be termed as actionable claimants and
have the locus to claim enhanced compensation, if any?
Onus on parties."
13. The petitioners were asked to lead evidence. In
petitioners evidence, Sh. Rahul Aggarwal examined himself as
PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A
and relied on the following documents:
1. Photocopy of judgment reported in 91(2001) DLT 603
(DB) dated 30.03.2001 titled as Hari Chand Vs. Union of
India in RFA No. 461 of 1995 along with other RFS as
Ex.PW1/1 (running into 13 pages).
2. Photocopy of judgment in LAC No. 27/1/06 titled as Jai
Chand Vs. Union of India dated 10.07.2006 as Ex.PW1/2
(running into 16 pages).
3. Photocopy of reported judgment in (2015) 15 SCC 200
dated 17.02.2015 titled as Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana and Ors. as Ex.PW1/3 (running into 8 pages).
4. Photocopy of reported judgment in (2018) 1 SCC 140
dated 06.11.2017 titled as Madhusudan Kabra and Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. as Ex.PW1/4 (running into 2
pages).
5. Photocopy of reported judgment in (2018) 13 SCC 222
dated 28.07.2017 titled as Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union
of India and Ors. as Ex.PW1/5 (running into 2 pages).
14. PW-1 was duly cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel
for the Union of India.
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 16 of 51 16:48:47 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
15. No other witness was examined on behalf of the
petitioners. Thereafter, PE was closed on 23.05.2023.
16. In RE on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh.
Satish Sharma, Ld. counsel for the Union of India was recorded
whereby he exhibited the Award No.1/97-98 of Village
Tuqlakabad as Ex.RW1/1. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of
Union of India was closed.
17. On behalf of respondent no.2, no evidence was led
despite opportunity given and matter was listed for final
arguments.
18. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise
findings are as under :
Issue No.1: What was the market value of the acquired land on
the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on the parties.
19. In the present petition, petitioners examined PW1 in PE.
PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit of evidence
Ex.PW1/A and relied upon certain documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.PW1/5.
20. Ld. counsel for the petitioners argued that Ex.PW1/1 and
Ex.PW1/2 may be considered as a covered matter with respect to
the present case. He submits that Ex.PW1/1 i.e. copy of judgment
reported in 91(2001) DLT 603 (DB) dated 30.03.2001 titled as
Hari Chand Vs. Union of India in RFA No. 461 of 1995 is
regarding the acquisition of a big chunk of land situated within
revenue estate of Village Tuglakabad for the purpose of land
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 Date:
2024.12.24
16:48:54 +0530
Page 17 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
development of Delhi, through notification issued under Section
4 and Section 17(1) of the Act on 01.06.1992 and actual physical
possession of the land had already been taken over in this case
also on 04.07.1988. He submits that the subject land of this case
and subject land of the present case are of the same village and
were acquired for the same purpose and were already in
possession of the government since 04.07.1988. He submitted
that the notification under Section 4 of the Act in Ex.PW1/1 is
prior in time and in this case the claimants were held entitled to
compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per sq. yards. He submitted that
Ex.PW1/2 is a covered case in LAC No. 27/1/06 titled as Jai
Chand Vs. Union of India dated 10.07.2006. He submitted that
the date of notification under Section 4, Section 6 of the LA Act
as well as the award of this case and the present case are same.
He submitted that subject land of both the cases also belong to
the same village and of the same area. He submitted that after
taking into consideration the escalation @ 10% per annum on the
amount of Rs.3,000/- per sq. yards as already fixed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above-mentioned case titled
Hari Chand Vs. Union of India (Ex.PW1/1), the claimants were
held entitled for compensation @ Rs.4180/- per sq. yards for the
land acquired in LAC No. 27/1/06. He submitted that the market
value in the present case also may be assessed atleast at the same
rate. He submitted that however, escalation @ 12-15% may be
considered while assessing the actual market value in the present
case and relied upon Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5. Ld. counsel for the
Union of India does not dispute the finality of judgment passed
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 18 of 51 16:48:59 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in PW1/1. However, he had
submitted that judgment passed by Reference Court in Ex.PW1/1
is under challenge in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court.
However, he cannot provide any details of appeal pending before
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
21. Ex.PW1/3 is photocopy of reported judgment in (2015)
15 SCC 200 dated 17.02.2015 titled as Ashok Kumar and Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, Ex.PW1/4 is photocopy of
reported judgment in (2018) 1 SCC 140 dated 06.11.2017 titled
as Madhusudan Kabra and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. and Ex.PW1/5 is photocopy of reported judgment in (2018)
13 SCC 222 dated 28.07.2017 titled as Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs.
Union of India and Ors. The subject land in cases Ex.PW1/3 to
Ex.PW1/5 is not of same area, of same notification and award as
of the subject land in the present case. No other evidence was led
by petitioners to show any similarity between subject land of the
present case and of Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5. Accordingly, in
view of the record to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, I am of the considered opinion that the annual increase
cannot be more than 10% for subject land in the present case.
22. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case title Union of India
Vs. Shri Harkishan Etc. in RFA 205/19777 dated 18.07.1995
observed that "(ii) by applying the law laid down in Union of
India Vs. Harkishan case (supra), when the land is acquired
under same notification, there cannot be compensation at
different rates....".
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 Date:
2024.12.24
Page 19 of 51 16:49:06 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
23. In Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Satpal & Ors.
decided on 09.02.2023, MANU/SC/0105/2023, Hon'ble Apex
Court held that amount of compensation assessed and determined
for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 of the
same village for same purpose can be said to be governing factor
as under both the notifications the land acquired are for the same
public purpose.
24. In the present case, for the purpose of adjudicating the
market value, reliance has been placed on abovestated Ex.PW1/2
wherein Ld. Reference Court had determined the market value of
the similarly situated land under same notification and award as
Rs.4180/- per sq. yards. Accordingly, on the basis of evidences
and arguments addressed by Ld. counsels for the petitioners and
respondents, I am of the opinion that if the market value in the
reference answered by Ld. Reference Court for the land acquired
vide same notification and under same award and for the land
adjacent to the land in question in the present case, be taken as
market rate of the land acquired in question on the date of
notification, then the market value of the acquired land in
question in the present case on the date of notification i.e. on
02.04.1996 in award number 1/97-98 shall be Rs.4180/- per sq.
yards. Accordingly, issue no.1 decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. 2A: Whether the original petitioners were legal and
rightful owners being subsequent purchasers/assignees of the
acquired land? OPP
AND
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 20 of 51 16:49:13 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
Issue No.2B: Whether the original petitioners had locus to file the
present petition being assignees of the acquired land vide
assessment deeds dated 14.05.1996, which were allegedly
executed after the date of notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties
25. Considering the nature of issues, the issues no.2A and
2B shall be discussed and decided together.
26. It is the case of the petitioners that they are subsequent
assignees of the acquired land. It is argued on behalf of the
petitioners that when Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into
effect, the land in question was declared to be vested in the Gaon
Sabha of the area and this vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha was
challenged through a civil suit No. 408/68 and it was adjudicated
vide judgment dated 03.11.1979 by Sh. R.P. Singh, PCS, Sub-
Judge, First Class Delhi whereby the order of Revenue
Assistant/DC thereby vesting the suit land in the Gaon Sabha of
the area was declared illegal and void and the suit of the
petitioners was decreed in their favour. It is also argued that an
application for correction of revenue record and making an entry
of the names of the applicants as owners in the Jamabandi and
Khasra Girdawari of Village Tuglakabad was filed in the court of
SDM/RA, South Delhi and vide its order dated 13.02.1989 Sh.
I.S. Cheena, ADM/RA, South Delhi ordered for implementation
of order passed by Civil Court in suit No. 408/1968 in the
revenue record. It is further argued that after issuance of
notification under Section 4 of LA Act in the present case,
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 21 of 51
16:49:18 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
mutation in the revenue record in the name of original owners
was effected.
27. On various occasions, the petitioners were asked to file
documents pertaining to chain of ownership. Perusal of order
dated 07.09.2022 shows that details of assignment deeds of the
year 2017, 2018 and 2019 was observed by Ld. Predecessor court
that day and thereafter the matter was listed for next date of
hearing to seek certain clarifications from District Nazir, Central.
On the next date of hearing i.e. on 19.10.2022, one table
mentioning the names of petitioners and the assignees was filed
on behalf of petitioners. Perusal of record shows that a similar
report dated 20.07.2022 i.e. a table mentioning the names of
petitioners and assignees was also filed by the Incharge, LAC
Branch, Central subsequently. However, perusal of these
documents shows that these documents are not complete on the
aspect of chain of owners because in these documents the names
of recorded owners are mentioned as per statement filed u/s 19 of
Land Acquisition Act in this case. Section 19 application was
filed at later stage for the purpose of reference, however, the date
of notification u/s 4 is 02.04.1996 and names of original owners
on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 are
not mentioned in these documents.
28. On 07.08.2024, a Khatoni already found to be filed on
record was exhibited as Ex.A-1 on admitting the veracity of the
Khatoni by counsels present for the parties. Perusal of Khatoni
shows that the original petitioners no.1 to 12 of the present
reference petition are actually the subsequent assignees vide
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2024.12.24
Page 22 of 51 16:49:24 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
assignment deeds dated 14.05.1996 and not the original owners
of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of
LA Act, 1894. Perusal of the present reference petition also
shows that none of the recorded owner as on date of notification
under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 filed the present reference
petition because no private person has been found to be a
recorded owner of the land in question in the revenue record on
the date of notification of Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 in this case.
Comparison of names of the original petitioners in the present
reference petition with names of applicants in order dated
13.02.1989 of Sh. I.S. Cheena, ADM, South Delhi (for correction
of revenue record) and name of plaintiffs in civil suit No.
408/1968 shows that none of the plaintiffs of the civil suit as well
as none of the applicants as mentioned in order dated 13.02.1989
of the ADM, South Delhi filed the present reference petition. The
present petitioners are claiming their rights based on subsequent
assignment deeds. It is also pertinent to mention here that
possession of the land in question was taken on 04.07.1988 by
Flood Control & Drainage Division of Delhi Government i.e.
much prior to the abovesaid order dated 13.02.1989 as passed by
ADM, South Delhi as well as Section 4 notification on
02.04.1996. After the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into
effect, the name of any private person as holder of the land in
question was entered in the revenue record for the first time on
14.05.1996 i.e. after issuance of notification under Section 4 of
LA Act, 1894 on 02.04.1996 in the present case. The petitioners
were time and again substituted by subsequent assignees on the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16
Date:
2024.12.24
16:49:30 +0530
Page 23 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
basis of various subsequent assignment deeds in this case. Even
the names of the original petitioners were recorded in the revenue
record for the first time w.e.f. 14.05.1996 on the basis of
subsequent assignment deeds. However, any of the assignment
deeds was never proved by the petitioners. Even if Khatoni Ex.A-
1 is relied upon, which shows the original petitioners no.1 to 12
of the reference petition as subsequent assignees vide assignment
deed dated 14.05.1996, then also it shows that these original
petitioners were not the recorded owners on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 1894 and accordingly,
the present reference petition was not filed by the alleged original
owners.
29. It is settled law that subsequent purchasers shall step into
the shoes of the original owner. In view of the same, at first the
title of the original owner also needs to be checked. As per the
revenue record, the type of land has been described as gair
mumkin pahar. The land being gair mumkin pahar was vested in
Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Reforms Land Act, 1954. The
alleged original owners filed a civil suit No. 408/68 vide which
the vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha was challenged and the
same was decreed by Ld. PCS Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi in
favour of plaintiffs therein and while observing that the suit land,
being gair mumkin pahar, banjar qadim and included within the
holdings of the plaintiff therein was not effected by Section 7 of
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and did not vest in Gaon Sabha
and Union of India, declared the order of Revenue Assistant/DC
thereby vesting the suit under Gaon Sabha as illegal and void.
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
LAC NO. 37/16
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:36 +0530
Page 24 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
30. Perusal of the judgment dated 03.11.1969 of Ld. Sub-
Judge, First Class shows that the only document to be relied upon
in favour of the petitioners in the civil suit was jamabandi of the
suit land in the year 1948-49 and the same was exhibited as
Ex.P4. It was observed by Ld. Sub-Judge that as per the
jamabandi the plaintiffs were recorded as owners in possession of
the suit land in their respective shares and there was no other
jamabandi of later period.
31. It was argued on behalf of petitioners that the acquired
land was recorded as gair mumkin pahar and subsequently it
could not be vested with the Gaon Sabha and the order of Deputy
Commissioner passed under Section 7(2) of the Act was wholly
illegal. They further relied upon the decision in the abovesaid
civil suit. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the Union of India
argued that the acquired land was not in the holding of the
petitioners and they had no rights over the same and the same had
been rightly vested with the Gaon Sabha itself and relied upon
judgments of Ld. Apex Court in 'Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh' in Civil
Appeal No. 1228/1966 decided on 11.09.1970 and Gaon Sabha &
Ors. Vs. Nathi & Ors., MANU/SC/0269/2004.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.
1228/1966 in case titled 'Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh' decided on
11.09.1970 while discussing various provisions of Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954 observed as under:
"4. Sections 6, 11, 13 and 154 of the Act read
together, thus, show that, after the Act came into
force, proprietors of agricultural land as such ceased
to exist. If any land was part of a holding of a
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24
Page 25 of 51
16:49:42
+0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024
Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
proprietor, he became a Bhumidar of it. If it was part
of a holding of some other person, such as a tenant
or a sub-tenant etc., he became either a Bhumidar or
an Asami, whereupon the rights of the proprietor in
that land ceased. Lands, which were not holdings of
either the proprietor or any other person, vested in
the Gaon Sabha. In the case of proprietors, their
rights in the land continued to exist only in respect
of holdings which, under the definition, must have
been either their sir or khud kasht at the
commencement of the Act. If it was not sir or khud
kasht of a proprietor, it would not be his holding
and, consequently, such land would vest in the Gaon
Sabha under section 154, the result of which would
be that the rights of the proprietor would be
extinguished. It appears that it was in view of this
scheme of the Act that, under section 84, the right to
institute a suit for possession was granted only to a
Bhumidar, or an Asami, or the Gaon Sabha. The Act
envisaged only these three classes of persons who
would possess rights in agricultural I-and after the
commencement of the Act. Proprietors as such
having ceased to exist could not, therefore, institute
a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has
been lost sight of by the High Court and the lower
courts, because it appears that their attention was not
drawn to the provisions of section 154 of the Act,
under which all lands of proprietors, other than those
comprised in their holdings, vested in the Gaon
Sabha, thus extinguishing their proprietary rights.
....
7. Khanna, J., in the case of Lai Singh v. Sardara & Another(1) correctly interpreted the scope and purpose of the Rules, under which forms of declaration of Bhumidari rights are issued, but, in our opinion, incorrectly inferred that, since there is no effectual adjudication of rights by the revenue authorities while declaring Bhumidari rights, their declaration must be subject to the due adjudication of rights which, in the absence of anything to the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 26 of 51 16:49:48 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India contrary, can only be by a Civil Court. It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities without going, through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights; but such adjudication must be by an application under item 4 of Schedule I and not by approach to the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred by section 185 of the Act read with the various items of the First Schedule mentioned above. If a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his right, he has to approach the Revenue Assistant by an application under item 4, while, if a Gaon Sabha wants a clarification in respect of any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land, it can institute a suit for a declaration under item 28, and the Revenue Assistant can make a declaration of the right of such person. So far as suits for possession are concerned, we have already held earlier that section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule gives the jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession, and that the suit for possession in respect of agricultural land, after the commencement of the Act, can only be instituted either by a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha. There can be no suit by any person claiming to be a proprietor, because the Act does not envisage a proprietor as such continuing to have rights after the commencement of the Act. The First Schedule and s. 84 of the Act provide full remedy for suit for possession to persons who can hold rights in agricultural land under the Act.
8. The High Court, in this connection, referred to section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the title of any party to the land, which is the subject-matter of a suit or proceeding under the First Schedule, has to be referred by the Revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question. Inference was sought to be, drawn from this provision that questions of title could be Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24
16:49:54 +0530
Page 27 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference. On the contrary, section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a revenue Court, an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that, if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under item 4 of Schedule I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court. The ,Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that any one, wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidar, or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation, because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be sought under section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were, thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit."
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 LAC NO. 37/16 16:50:01 +0530 Page 28 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
32. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sher Singh & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1796 held that:
"As stated earlier, indisputably in the revenue records the land in question had been recorded as gair mumkin pahar. Under those circumstances, this gair mumkin pahar land which was not held by the respondents as khudkhastdars as proprietors thereof. As a consequence, the land shall stand vested in the Gaon Sabha."
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled 'Gaon Sabha & Ors. Vs. Nathi & Ors.' MANU/SC/0269/2004 while holding that Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 provides for ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court observed as under:
"13. Section 185 provides for ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under:
Section 185. (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 shall, not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof ."
Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 185 provide for first appeal and second appeal in certain situations and also the forum for preferring such appeals. As discussed earlier the plaintiffs in the suit could not have sought declaration of any kind in their capacity "as proprietor of the land" as the said concept of proprietorship stood abolished after the enforcement of the Act. They could only seek a declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar or Asami which they could do only in one of the courts mentioned in column 7 of the Schedule to the Act and not in civil court. This position was also Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 29 of 51 16:50:10 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India clearly stated in Hatti v. Sundar Singh, [1970] 2 SCC 841 and relevant part of para 7 of the report is being reproduced below:
"...........The Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that anyone, wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidhar, or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under Item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation, because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be sought under Section 84, read with Item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were, thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit."
14. It appeals that some conflicting judgments had been delivered by learned Single Judges of Delhi High Court on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and accordingly the matter was referred to a larger bench and the controversy was then resolved by a Division Bench (Jagjit Singh and Avadh Behari JJ.) in Gaon Sabha of Lado Sarai v. Jage Ram, ILR (1973) 1 Delhi 984. The Division Bench specifically dealt with land which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar or banjar qadim or banjar jadid and held that in view of notification no. 6073- R dated December 23, 1929 issued under Rule 2 sub-rule (2) of Land Revenue Assessment Rules, 1929 which were framed by the Governor-General in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 60 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the land recorded as gair mumkin, banjar jadid and banjar qadim is also agricultural land. The real issue arising Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 30 of 51 16:50:15 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India in such kind of suits filed before the civil court was posed by the Bench in the following manner:
"It will inevitably happen that when a plaintiff, a Bhumidhar or an Assami comes to court and challenges the vesting order of the Revenue Assistant regarding his land in the Gaon Sabha then he invariably asks that he (the plaintiff) is entitled to the Bhumidhari rights and that a declaration be made in his favour. Unless the civil court can first grant a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to Bhumidhari rights, no order can be passed about the vesting order of the Revenue Assistant in the Gaon Sabha."
The Bench thereafter went on to hold that when the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the order of vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal, It is inextricably linked with the declaration that the land is included in the plaintiffs' holding and he is entitled to declaration of his Bhumidhari rights. In such circumstances, the first relief is consequential upon plaintiffs being granted the second relief as the substantive relief claimed by the plaintiff is that he is entitled to the declaration of Bhumidhari rights. It was accordingly held that the civil court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit even if the land involved is Gair Mumkin Pahar or banjar quadim. It will be useful to reproduce the findings recorded by the Bench which are as under:
"Section 185 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act enacts a complete bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court. Item 4 in Schedule 1 to the Act mentions applications for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in column 3 and the Court of the Revenue Assistant is the court of original jurisdiction for such application in column 7. In all the cases under appeal the plaintiff prays for a declaration decree in his favour and against the Gaon Sabha to the effect that the order of the Revenue Assistant regarding the inclusion of the plaintiffs land in question in Land Reform Form No.2 as the property of the Gaon Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 31 of 51 16:50:21 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India Sabha is illegal and the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to be declared a Bhumidar of the said land..............
In none of the cases a civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit whether the land involved is banjar quadim or ghair mumkin pahar or ghair mumkin khandrat. The aggrieved party must seek his remedy within the four corners of the Act. Where a plaintiff, a Bhumidhar or an Assami comes to Court and challenges the vesting order of the Revenue Assistant regarding his land in the Gaon Sabha, then he invariably asks that he (the plaintiff) is entitled to the Bhumidhari rights and that a declaration be made in his favour. Unless the civil court can first grant a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to Bhumdhari rights, no order can be passed about the vesting order of the Revenue Assistant in the Gaon Sabha.
Held, therefore, that as the plaintiffs claim in substance is that he has Bhumidhari rights in the suit land and the vesting order contrary to law, such a suit could not be brought in the civil court by reason of the said section of the Act."
15. The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal. It is indeed surprising that in spite of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court which was rendered in 1973 which had settled the legal position and was a binding precedent and the decision of this Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh (supra) which was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal (RSA No.73 of 1972), he chose to bye-pass the same by some queer logic and went on to hold that the civil suit was maintainable. Once we come to the legal position that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the inevitable Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 32 of 51 16:50:28 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India consequence is that the decree passed in the aforesaid suit including that of the High Court is wholly without jurisdiction. In such circumstances the principle laid down in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR (1954) SC 340 would come into play that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings and further a defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. Therefore, the finding that the order passed under section 7 (2)of the Act vesting the property in the Gaon Sabha is illegal recorded in the civil suit (including that by the High Court in second Appeal) has to be completely ignored.
.....
18. What was the precise case set up by the respondents can be ascertained from the objection which was filed by them before the Land Acquisition Collector (ME), Delhi in response to the public notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and para 1 thereof is being reproduced below:
"That the claimants were the owners of the above said land which was notified to be acquired vide the above said notifications being co-sharers of Thok Pudhori, Patti Moharaja."
In para 2 it is state that the land was wrongly and illegally shown in the revenue record of Gaon Sabha Tehkhand and on its dissolution and urbanisation of revenue estate, in the name of Union of India. In para 3 it is stated that some of the co-sharers in their representative capacity filed a civil suit for a declaration that the Gaon Sabha is not the owner of the land and the said suit was decreed up to the stage Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 33 of 51 16:50:35 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India of second appeal by the High Court and in para 4, mention is made of the writ petition which was filed in Delhi High Court. Para 5 contains the prayer clause that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard. The respondents have made the claim for compensation mainly on the ground that they are owners or proprietors of the acquired land. They do not claim to be Bhumidhar or Asami thereof. As discussed earlier, with the enforcement of the Act the very concept of proprietorship stands abolished and, therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation.
19. Shri R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents has submitted that this Court had dismissed special.leave petitions filed against the decision of Delhi High Court in some similar matters and therefore the present appeal should also be dismissed. An identical contention was raised before the Bench which had earlier heard CA No. 2183 of 1993 (Union of India v. Sher Singh and Ors.) but was repelled on the ground that the fact that leave had been granted in the said matter had not been brought to the notice of the respective benches which heard subsequent special leave petitions. The Bench also observed that the settled legal position is that the dismissal of special leave petition without speaking order does not constitute res-judicata and therefore it was open to the court to examine the question on merits. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for respondents, we are also of the opinion that the question canvassed before us is of considerable importance and may effect large number of cases and, therefore, the mere fact that in some other similar cases leave was not granted and special leave petitions were summarily dismissed would not come in the way of this Court to examine the matter on merits. Shri Jain has also submitted that the question in issue being one of a local Act and the High Court having taken a particular view, this Court should not Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:40 +0530 Page 34 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India upset the same. We are afraid that taking such a generalised view of the matter would render the power conferred upon this Court by Article 136 of the Constitution nugatory and would virtually amount to attaching finality to every judgment of the High Court involving a local Act. That apart the view taken by the High Court in the present matter is clearly contrary to two earlier Division Bench decisions of the same court rendered in Gaon Sabha of Lado Sarai v. Jage Ram, MANU/DE/0290/1973 :
ILR (1973) (1) Delhi 984 and Nathu v. Hukam Singh, MANU/DE/0376/1981 : AIR1983Delhi 216 and also of this Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, MANU/SC/0410/1970 : [1971] 2SCR163.
20. In the result, Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 1993 and Civil Appeal No. 3105 of 1997 succeed and are hereby allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and decrees of the High Court in both the appeals are set aside and it is held that the Gaon Sabha is entitled to entire amount of compensation."
34. In Ram Niwas vs Pitamber Singh And Ors.
MANU/DE/02370/2008 , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows:
"In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh reported in MANU/SC/0410/1970: [1971] 2 SCR163. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it was held as under:
7. The High Court, in this connection, referred to Section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject-matter of a suit or proceeding under the First Schedule has to be referred by the Revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question.
Inference was sought to be drawn from this provision that questions of title could be Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:47 +0530 Page 35 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference. On the contrary, Section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court,an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the Civil court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that, if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Item 4 of Schedule-I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court. The Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that any one, wanting a declaration of his right as Bhumidar, or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favor of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under Item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation, because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favor of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be sought under Section 84, read with item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were, thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant, and the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24 16:50:53 +0530 Page 36 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
8. When the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court are read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 186 of the Act, which was interpreted in the said decision, it is established that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to try and decide directly in respect of matters of title. In such cases, proceeding has to he initiated before the Revenue Court and in such a proceeding, if a question arises with regard to title, the said issue would be framed and referred to the Civil Court."
35. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hira Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. held as under:
"11. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellants giving our due and thoughtful consideration to the same. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid contention, for in the present case we are required to examine the facts in the light of the evidence adduced and also take notice of the judgments which have been placed before us. It cannot be denied that the land being gair mumkin pahar vested in the gaon sabha under the Reforms Act. Consequently, only the reference court constituted under the Reforms Act could decide as to whether or not the land vested in the gaon sabha exclusively and since there is no such decision of the revenue court to the contrary upholding the claim of the appellants, therefore, the question of predecessor- in-interest of the appellants acquiring the right of the proprietor in the lau not arise. It also cannot be said that the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest were either bhumidars or assignees. Without there being any declaration to that effect declaring the other predecessors-in-interest of the appellants as bhumidars or assamis, they cannot claim any right to receive any compensation which is conclusively held by the Supreme Court in the decision of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra).
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 LAC NO. 37/16 16:50:59 +0530 Page 37 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
12. So far the submission of the counsel for the appellants that the issue relating to title of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants cannot be re- agitated, having been decided by the civil court, is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid issue also stands answered by the decision of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra). It is laid down in the said decision that the question of title in respect of the land could have been decided only by the reference court as neither the predecessor- in-interest nor the appellants were declared as bhumidars or asamis.
13. One of the submissions that was raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the issue that is being raised by the respondents, that the appellants have no right and title to the land in question, is barred by the principles of res judicata. The said contention also appears to us to be without any merit inasmuch as such declaration with regard to title of the appellants in respect of the land could have been actually declared by a reference court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid finding as arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge is barred by the principles of res judicata.
14. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. On appreciation of the record, we find that the learned Additional District Judge has arrive findings recorded by him on appreciation of the entire record 8 including the various judgments which were placed by the parties before the leamed Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge also considered the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra) and also took notice of the fact that some of the Special Leave Petitions as against the order passed by the High Court, arising out of seven references under Section 30 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act were dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was held that the findings regarding title of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 Page 38 of 51 16:51:05 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India the land in question and the entitlement thereto was re-considered and decided on merit in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra). Dismissal of some of the Special Leave Petitions filed against the order of the High Court, arising out of seven references under Section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, can never be a bar for consideration as the fact of dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petitions had been taken note of in the decision rendered in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra). The learned Additional District Judge held that dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions did not and could not constitute a bar for application of the principles of res judicata. After referring to the decision in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra), the learned Additional District Judge held that the Supreme Court after elaborate discussion of law and considering earlier litigation between the parties on the point of title, held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently the decree passed in the said suit including the one passed by the High Court was without jurisdiction and, therefore, it was held that the land described as gair mumkin pahar vested in gaon sabha being final and is connection binding and they would be entitled to entire amount of compensation. 19 The learned Additional District Judge held that the aforesaid decision and the findings of the Supreme Court in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra) to the extent that the land described as gair mumkin pahar vested in the gaon sabha, it would not be possible to hold that the title of land vested on the appellants. The learned Additional District Judge upon reference to the various decisions held that the title of the parties with respect to the land described as gair mumkin pahar stood clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra) and, therefore, the right, title or interest of the parties in respect of the land in question is to be decided by Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24
16:51:23 +0530
Page 39 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India applying the aforesaid law. Considering the said fact, it was held that the appellants have no right, title and interest in the land in question which has been described as gair mumkin pahar.
15. The aforesaid findings are under challenge in this appeal. However, upon going through the proposition of law settled so far and also in the decision of the Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra) and in view of observations recorded by us hereinbefore, there could be no other findings than that the land being gair mumkin pahar vested in the gaon sabha absolutely. Any other finding recorded by a civil court cannot be said to be binding in the present proceedings. We are also of the considered opinion that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha & Others vs. Nathi & Others (supra) would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the appellants in the present appeal have any right, title and interest in the land in question and, therefore, the reference application filed by them was rightly held to be not maintainable. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
36. In the present case also subject land is Gair Mumkin Pahar. In view of the settled law as discussed in abovestatd case laws there can be no other findings than that the land being gair mumkin pahar vested in the Gaon Sabha absolutely and any other finding recorded by a civil court cannot be said to be binding in the present proceedings.
37. To prove its case, only a single witness i.e. petitioner no.3 Sh. Rahul Aggarwal was examined as PW1 by the petitioners in PE. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, where all the averments were made only for Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 Page 40 of 51 16:51:30 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India assessment of actual market value of the land in question at the relevant time. He also filed documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5. These documents have been discussed earlier and need not to be discussed again. These documents are judgments relied upon for assessing the actual market value of the land in question. Accordingly, none of these documents are useful for deciding the controversy involved in issues No.2A and 2B.
38. During his cross-examination dated 17.05.2023, PW1 answered that he had also purchased rights in other lands on the basis of assessment deed in Village Jasola and he had received the compensation from the Court of South-East, Saket, New Delhi.
39. Ld. counsel for Union of India argued that this answer of PW1 shows that he cannot be termed as bonafide subsequent purchaser and he is involved in profession of purchasing rights in land on the basis of assignment deed after paying the meager amount to the land owners and thereafter he gets hefty amount as compensation from the Government and in support of his contentions Ld. counsel for UOI relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Agra Development Authority Vs. State of U.P. And Ors., MANU/UP/0238/2004 and against which Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14042/2004 was filed and same was also dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.01.2005 with the observation "We see no reason to interfere.".
40. In Agra Development Authority case (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed as under :
Digitally signed by YADVENDERYADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 41 of 51 16:51:37 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India "17. On the other hand, in Manmatha Nath Mullick v.
Sheikh Hedait Ali, AIR 1932 PC 32. Privy Council held that where what was assigned was not a mere right to sue but a claim for a definite sum of money which the lessee was bound by his contract with the lessor to repay it would be an actionable claim to which Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act applied and hence Section 6(e) had no application.
18. Thus, the above decisions show that a distinction has been drawn between a mere right to sue and an actionable claim. To give an example, if A files a suit against B claiming certain property or certain money then if A executes a deed in favour of C transferring all his right in respect of the litigation before the suit is decided such a conveyance would be invalid being hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. However, if the suit of A against B is decreed, and after the decree, but before its execution, A transfers all his rights under the decree to C this conveyance would not be hit by Section 6(e) vide AIR 1935 Cal 751; AIR 1955 Mad 165 etc.
19. In the present case we are of the opinion that what has been transferred is a mere right to sue and not any property or an actionable claim.
20. It is crystal clear that in the present case, the land was not transferred but merely a right to pursue the litigation to recover compensation was transferred. In our opinion, this is clearly prohibited by Section 6(e) of the T. P. Act and therefore, the conveyance deeds in favour of the respondents are wholly invalid and they cannot maintain any claim on their basis.
28. Let the Registrar of this Court place copy of this judgment before the Administrative Committee of the High Court for taking appropriate action against the concerned persons and judicial officers who appear to be in collusion. A copy of this order will also be sent by the Registrar General to all District Judges in U.P. who in turn will communicate it to all Judges hearing Land Acquisition References with the warning that collusive orders may lead to disciplinary action."
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 Page 42 of 51 16:51:44 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
41. PW1 also answered during his cross-examination that he had visited the property before purchasing the same on assignment and it was wrong to suggest that the land in question is a pahar. He answered that at the time of purchasing the rights in the land, there was Batra Hospital existing on the land in question. He also answered that he had seen the documents of ownership from the earlier owner at the time of purchasing the right in the land on the assignment deed. He further answered that he had not taken the title deeds from the earlier owner at the time of purchasing the rights. He also answered that he did not know whether the documents were not taken from the earlier owner as he was not owner of the land. He answered that he could not tell the name of the assignor but the document i.e. assignment deed is on record. He also answered that he did not remember how much amount he had paid to the seller for purchasing the assignment rights in his favour. He answered that it was wrong to suggest that the assignment deed executed in his favour was not valid.
42. Ld. counsel for the Union of India argued that Batra Hospital was not in existence on the land in question and it is located some kilometers away from the land in question.
43. Perusal of cross-examination PW1 creates doubt on the validity of the assignment deed itself, when neither the assignment deed was lead during the PE nor the assignor was examined. The answers of PW1 also create a question mark on the valid title in favour of the assignor, when PW1 answers that he did not know whether the title documents were not taken from Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 Page 43 of 51 16:51:51 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India the earlier owner as he was not owner of the land. This answer shows that PW1 was not certain about ownership of assignor.
44. As discussed earlier, it is a settled law that subsequent purchaser shall step into the shoes of the original owner and accordingly a valid title of the land in question in favour of the original owner needs to be proved and onus lies on the claimant itself to prove the same.
45. PW1 answered that he visited the property before purchasing the same on assignment, however, his answers suggests differently, when he answers that at the time of purchase the Batra Hospital was in existence on the land in question.
46. On perusal of record, one coloured copy of an assignment deed dated 18.04.2018 was found to be tagged on record. This document was not led in PE for reasons best known to the petitioners. This assignment deed was executed by Sh. Pankaj Goyal in favour of Sh. Sunil Chand Goyal and Sh. Rahul Aggarwal. In the present assignment deed, the nature of land use has been mentioned as agricultural land and no mentioning of existence of Batra Hospital on the land in question is found in the deed. In the deed itself on page no.3, it has been mentioned that the possession of the land had already been taken over by the Flood Control and Drainage Division of the Delhi Government on 04.07.1988. When the deed itself shows that possession was already taken over by the government department way back in the year 1988 then it was nothing but a lie that Batra Hospital was in existence on the subject land in the year 2018. No such proof was ever produced by the petitioners and accordingly his Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 Date:
2024.12.24 16:51:57 +0530 Page 44 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India answer that he visited the land in question at the time of purchase cannot be relied upon and it can be said that PW1 is not even aware about the exact location of the subject land.
47. Moreover, the chain of ownership as mentioned in the assignment deed itself suggests that none of the transaction qua the land in question was based on sale deed and all the rights/title were claimed merely on the basis of agreement to sell and assignment deed. It is a settled law that neither an agreement to sell nor assignment deed confer a valid title of the property in favour of the purchaser. As per the deed itself, the assignor Sh. Pankaj Goyal is not the original owner and he also got his right in the land in question on the basis of one assignment deed executed by Mrs. Aruna Malhotra, who also got her rights in the land in question on the basis of agreement to sell dated 11.07.1994 and 17.07.1994 and thereafter on the basis of assignment deed dated 22.04.1996 in her favour. As per the deed itself, all rights of the assignor, regarding compensation in the subject land, whatsoever to be settled by the LAC in the award, if any, or enhanced by the Reference Court or in appeals, were assigned by the assignor. As discussed above, these assignment deeds are not documents of transfer of title in favour of the assignees. What to talk about subsequent purchaser/assignees, even the original petitioners in the present case had also claimed their title on the basis of agreement to sell/assignment deeds. The alleged mutation in favour of original petitioners of this case qua the subject land after Section 4 notification of LA Act is also cannot be said to be a valid proceeding as the ownership of the land can be obtained Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24
16:52:04 +0530
Page 45 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India by a valid sale deed and not merely on the basis of agreement to sell or assignment deed. Otherwise also, it is also a settled law that mutation entry in the revenue records is not the proof of ownership.
48. The mutation effected post Section 4 notification of LA Act on the basis of assignment deed dated 22.04.1996 is also not a valid entry as it is a settled law that any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 does not bind the government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. It is a settled law that on taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the LA Act, 1894, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. In the present case, Section 4 notification was issued on 02.04.1996 and admittedly possession of the land was taken way back on 04.07.1988.
49. The assignment deeds by alleged owners were executed for the first time on 22.04.1996 as per abovesaid assignment deed of PW1 and on 14.05.1996 as per earlier stated Khatoni Ex.A-1. Even if any of the document is considered to be correct regarding date of execution of these assignment deeds then also both the dates are of post notification time and also after the time when possession of the subject land was taken by Government. Accordingly, the collusion of the then concerned revenue officials with the original petitioners of this case to help them get compensation to which they were not entitled is apparent.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24 16:52:10 +0530 Page 46 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
50. It is also pertinent to mention here that an intimation was filed on behalf of Union of India on 26.03.2004 in this court alongwith the notices served through SDM (Kalkaji) initiated for the purpose of recovery against the original claimants by the office of LAC, ADM, South East. On inquiry, Ld. counsels for the parties submitted that these notices were not found to be challenged by the original awardees of the compensation. It was not explained on behalf of petitioners that when notices for recovery have already been issued to the original claimants then how the subsequent assignees can claim enhanced compensation without challenging these notices.
51. The possession of the subject land was taken by Government on 04.07.1988. However, for the reasons best know to the alleged original owners, they did not approach the concerned authority for appropriate remedy under Section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule of DLR Act, 1954 or any other applicable law regarding the subject land.
52. When neither there was any mutation in favour of the alleged original owners before date of Section 4 notification of LA Act nor they were in possession then any mutation on the basis of assignment deed directly in favour of assignees cannot be held valid.
53. Date of execution of assignment deed in favour of Smt. Aruna Malhotra is 14.05.1996 as per Sr. No. 14 of Khatoni Ex.A-
1. The veracity of this document was not disputed by the parties. But the abovesaid assignment deed in favour of PW1 shows the date of execution of assignment deed in favour of Smt. Aruna Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 Page 47 of 51 16:52:16 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India Malhotra as 22.04.1996. This difference of dates in the transactions also puts a doubt on the genuineness of the assignment deed in faovur of PW1.
54. The civil court judgment dated 03.11.1979 or order of ADM/RA, South Delhi dated 13.02.1989 was also not led in the evidence on behalf of petitioners. Moreover, during his cross- examination dated 17.05.2023, PW1 answered that it was wrong to suggest that he got the mutation recorded in his favour on the basis of a civil court decree. On the next date of hearing, he answered that he did not know the person who had filed the civil suit for declaration of bhoomidar rights. It was at this stage that copy of the order of the court was shown to the witness by Ld. counsel for Union of India and it was exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX2. PW-1 again denied about filing the same. It shows that he did not bother about valid title in favour of assignor before transfer of right to sue to him.
55. Moreover, none of such agreement to sell or assignment deeds were ever led and proved on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, even if just for sake of arguments, the original petitioners of this case are considered as validly recorded owners then also the present petitioners are not entitled for any compensation due to non-proving the validity of the assignment deeds in their favour by examining the executors of these deeds and by leading these deeds in evidence.
56. At page No.2 of the Award Ex.RW1/1 also, it has been mentioned that none of the claimants had produced any Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 16:52:23 LAC NO. 37/16 +0530 Page 48 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India documentary evidence with their claims. So, it creates serious doubt about valid title in favour of claimants.
57. Moreover, apart from petitioner no.3 none of the remaining petitioners entered into the witness box in PE.
58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled ' Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 has categorically observed that:
"16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai, C.R.P. (PD) No.2182 of 2019 Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box." The above ratio was followed by this Court in 2016 (4) CTC 158, Thomas and another vs. Thiyagarajan."Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 37/16 2024.12.24
16:52:30 +0530
Page 49 of 51
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
59. In view of the abovesaid discussion, settled legal position and facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the original petitioners were not legal and rightful owners of the subject land and had no locus to file the present petition being subsequent assignees of the acquired land vide assessment deeds dated 14.05.1996, which were allegedly executed after the date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, issues no.2A and 2B are decided against the petitioners. Issue No.2C: Whether the present petitioners being subsequent assignees can be termed as actionable claimants and have the locus to claim enhanced compensation, if any? Onus on parties."
60. As issues number 2A and 2B have already been decided against the petitioners, so issue No.2C needs not to be decided and accordingly while exercising power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, issue no.2C is hereby deleted.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land? OPP
61. As issues No. 2A and 2B are already decided against the petitioners, so they cannot be held entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land. Accordingly, issue no.2 is also decided against the petitioners.
Issue No.3: Relief.
62. As issue No.2, 2A and 2B have already been decided against the petitioners, therefore, the present reference petition is not maintainable.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 37/16 SINGH Date: 2024.12.24 Page 50 of 51 16:52:38 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024 Chandan Sawhney Vs. Union of India
63. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed.
64. The reference petition under Section 18 (2) of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C and
3. Statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court Digitally signed on this 24th Day of December, 2024. YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.24 16:52:44 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI LAC NO. 37/16 Page 51 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/24.12.2024