Delhi District Court
Lac No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union ... vs . Shub Inder Singh & Others 1/15 on 7 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 30A/10/04
New No. 58/16
Union of India
versus
Sh. Shub Inder Singh
S/o Late Joginder Singh
R/o 2/11, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi ....IP No.1
Ms. Anita Chowdhary
Ms. Sangeeta Chowdhary
Ms. Mamta Chowdhary
All residents of :
2/11, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. ....IP No.2
Award No. : 5/DCW/2004-05
Village : 2/1 to 2/15, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Award : 06.10.2004
Date of institution of the case : 17.04.2004
Date of reserving of judgment : 17.12.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.01.2017
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) referred reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect to Award no. 5/DCW/2004-05, land measuring 66.34 sq. meter as per enclosed Naksha Muntzamin along LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 1/15 with compensation of Rs.7,96,876/- for the purpose of M.R.T.S. Project. The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
2. Notice of the reference sent to all the Interesting Persons.
3. As per order dated 17.04.2004, the cheque of Rs.7,96,876/- was directed to be deposited in treasury as per rules.
4. IP No. 1 Sh. Shub Inder Singh, LR of Lt. Col.
Jogindar Singh (Retd.) being constituted attorney filed the statement of claim in respect of half share in property no. E- 2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'property in question').
5. In brief, facts stated are that Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra, both sons of late Sardar Bahadur Sardar Sital Singh remained in joint possession and joint enjoyment of the property in question after the death of original lessee on 09.07.1963. The widow and daughters of late Sardar Bahadur Sardar Sital Singh had relinquished their right, title and interest by virtue of six sale deeds executed on 19.07.1963 in favour of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra for valuable consideration. Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra did not admit the sale deeds, therefore, they could not be registered. Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh had taken possession of the property in question on 19.07.1963 and has continued to be remained in possession as part performance of the contract of sale and LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 2/15 paid ground rent and property taxes of entire property since 09.07.1963 and thereafter his legal heirs excluding one small payment of Ground Rent made jointly with Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra. It is further stated that Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and his legal heirs also paid damage charges for alleged unauthorized construction of one room measuring 10' x 10' in front of the rear side room in the area in their occupation for the period 26.12.1970 to 14.01.2005 and receipts are filed on record with regard to all payments including ground rent, property tax & damage charges.
6. It is stated that late Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra had instituted a civil suit no. 224/68 (now suit no. 191/03) on 05.04.1968 for partition of the property in question titled 'Gurcharan Singh Chopra vs. Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh & others'. On 23.05.1969, a preliminary decree for partition was passed in favour of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra, thereby share of Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chopra and Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh declared half share each respectively in the property in question. Thereafter, final decree of partition was passed on 08.09.1969 on the basis of forged compromise Ex. C/1 and a plan Ex. C/2 showing the partition proposed. It is further stated that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash was misled to record the purported compromise. Mr. N.R. Suri, Counsel for Sh.Gurcharan Singh has committed forgery by signing in the place exclusively meant for the signature of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh. The final decree in equal share has not been drawn up on non-judicial stamp papers for over 34 years. Therefore, it is not executable. The copies of preliminary decree and final decree have been placed on record but it is based on forged compromise, which is also filed on record.
LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 3/15
7. It is stated that Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra, who is co-lessee with Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh inducted Sh. Prithvi Raj, Public Servant, Income Tax Officer along with his wife Smt. Sneh Lata into the undivided portion of the property in question on 03.05.1971 on the basis of fraudulent sale deed executed in the name of Smt. Dhan Bai and Smt. Mohan Devi Jasuja, respective mothers of Sh. Prithvi Raj and Smt. Sneh Lata. The undivided portion of the property presently occupied by the family of late Sh. Prithvi Raj, which is in dispute. It is stated that on 07.04.1983 Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh instituted suit no. 535/83 (now suit no. 87/2002) titled as ' Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh vs. Prithvi Raj and Others' for declaration and possession seeking the possession of the portion of the property in the possession of late Sh.Prithvi Raj and Smt. Sneh Lata and also declaration that the property in question is still joint property of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chopra, each having half share and same suit is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. The legal heirs of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh moved application for transfer of the suit.
8. It is stated that late Sardar Bahadur Sardar Sital Singh was alloted a Bungalow i.e. property in question measuring 800 sq. yds. in East Patel Nagar in February, 1950 vide 99 years lease deed effective from 23.08.1950. A one storey bungalow with a barsati on the first floor was constructed and building was formally occupied on 26.11.1951 and plot size was reduced to 720.66 sq. yds. Consequent upon acquisition of 79.34 sq. yds. land by the Government on 28.04.2003 for the Metro Project. A wall was constructed in front of lawn and in the backyard is a national LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 4/15 common wall exclusively meant for the mutual convenience of the two brothers, namely, Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chopra. The principal lease deed did not permit sub division. The property is governed by the terms and conditions of principal lease deed dted 22.11.1950. After the death of decased Saradar Bahadur Sardar Sital Singh, MCD effected mutation in the joint name of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh. Gurcharan Singh on 25.03.1970 on the basis of mutation orders. Delhi Jal Board transferred the water connection no. 34448 in the joint name of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh. Gurcharan Singh. Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh died on 07.03.2003 leaving behind Mrs. Satinder Jagindar Singh (wife), Mr. Shub Inder Singh (son) and Dr. (Ms.) Madhu Singh (daughter).
9. Later Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra deceived his elder brother Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh to execute a supplemental deed to amend the restrictive clause 1 (vii) of the original lease deed which prohibits sub division/ partition and sale of the said land or building or any part thereof on the false pretence that it will make the 'mutation absolute'. In fact a substitution had already been effected by the L & DO in the joint names of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh and Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra on the basis of affidavit, court orders and death certificate on 14.01.1971. However, there is a material difference in the unregistered copy of the supplemental deed bearing serial no. 605 on the record of L & DO and a registered copy bearing serial no. 604 on record of the Sub- Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The words 'property situated at East Patel Nagar' have been fraudulently added to the copy of the supplemental deed presented for registration on LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 5/15 05.02.1971. The signature of Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh has been fraudulently obtained just above the words 'See Slip Attached' and below the signature of Sh G.S. Chopra. The extent of the tampering and fraudulent manipulation will be fully revealed when the original copy of the supplemental deed bearing serial no. 603 (or serial no. 606) is produced by Smt. Sneh Lata in the Court. The supplemental deed dated 04.02.1971 is null and void. Therefore, sale deed dated 03.05.1971 cannot be acted upon.
10. It is stated that late Sh. Prithvi Raj Choudhary, Income Tax Officer has obtained the property by abuse of his official position, while exercising jurisdiction over the Income Tax Returns submitted by Late Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh (Retd.) for the Assessment Year 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-
72. He has blatantly exceeded his powers in issuing a notice of advance tax for the Assessment Year 1972-73 when Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh was drawing a meager pension of Rs.330/-. It is further stated that Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra has blatantly aided and abetted the criminal misconduct of Sh. Prithvi Raj Choudhary by executing sale deed dated 03.05.1971. Late Sh. Prithavi Raj Choudhary was liable for misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by late Sh. Prithvi Raj Choudhary while in service and penal liability does not vanish off on retirement. It is stated that there is no right, title or interest has accrued to Smt.Sneh Lata and LRs of late Sh.Prithvi Raj on the basis of fraudulent sale deed dated 03.05.1971. The LRs of late Sh. Prithvi Raj have gained possession of the purported portion of the property by means of a corrupt and shady deal and their names have been mutated/substituted by dubious methods LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 6/15 and by resorting to tampering of documents, forgery, deceit, concealment, cheating, corrupt practices and fraud.
11. IP No. 1 seeks that no compensation should be awarded to LRs of late Sh. Prithvi Raj Choudhary, erstwhile public servant, Income Tax Officer presently in possession of the disputed portion of the property in question. The LRs of late Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh have an undisputed half share in the property and have sought possession of the portion of the property in question which is now in the illegal possession of LRs of late Sh. Prithvi Raj and Smt. Sneh Lata. The present market value of the acquired land is Rs.16,02,111/- and LRs of late Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh also entitled for interim compensation of 50% i.e. Rs.8,01,055.50 in addition to it, legal heirs of late Lt. Col. Jogindar Singh also claim interest, solatium and additional interest.
12. IP No. 2 filed claim stating that Smt. Sneh Lata is widow of late Sh. Prithvi Raj and is owner of half of plot no. 2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Originally the property in question was owned by Sh. G.S. Chopra and Sh. Joginder Singh. Thereafter, Smt. Mohan Devi w/o Sh. Ganesh Dass and Smt. Dhan Bai w/o Sh. Jiwan Dass became the owners of half share of the said property by virtue of sale deed duly registered with the Sub Registrar under registration at Sl. No. 3372 in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 2572, Pages 135 to 140 dated 05.05.1971. It is stated that subsequently Sh. Prithvi Raj, husband of IP no.2 became the owner of half portion of the property by virtue of Will left behind by Smt. Dhan Bai and Smt. Mohan Devi and on his death IP No. 2 Smt. Sneh Lata is owner of half portion of the plot no. 2/11, East Patel LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 7/15 Nagar, New Delhi and documents were sent to Land Acquisition Collector on 27.08.2003.
13. It is stated that the total land acquired is approximately 66.34 sq. mts. and portion of the claimant is approximately 29.16 sq. mts. and the complainant was offered a compensation of Rs.4,38,858/- by DMRC and same is acceptable to claimant Smt. Sneh Lata. It is stated that private party Sh. Subh Inder Singh has lodged claimed on the entire property on the basis of false and frivolous grounds which are entirely wrong. The IP No. 2 seeks release of Rs.4,38,858/-.
14. From the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 04.04.2008, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor:
(i). To what amount of compensation which
of the IP and in what terms is entitled for?
OPP
(ii). Relief.
15. In support of his case, IP No.1 Sh. Shub Inder Singh got himself examined as IP1W1 and Sh. Prakash Singh Rawat, UDC from the office of L & DO as IP1W2.
16. IP no. 2 got examined Ms. Anita Chowdhary as IP2W1, Ms. Sangeeta Chowdhary as IP2W2 and Ms. Mamta Chodhary as IP2W3. Thereafter, as per statement of Sh. F. Hasan, Counsel for the LRs of IP no.2 dated 30.07.2016, the evidence on behalf of IP No.2 was closed.
LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 8/15
17. IP No. Sh. Subh Inder Singh filed written arguments. Sh. F. Hasan, Ld. Counsel for the LRs of IP No. 2 has also filed written arguments. I have gone through the written arguments and considered the record. My findings on issue are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
18. In order to appreciate respective submissions of both the parties, first of all let us peruse the testimony of witnesses examined by both the parties. IP No.1 Sh. Subh Inder Singh himself appeared in witness box and proved affidavit Ex. IP1W1/A. He reiterated all the facts mentioned in the claim. The affidavit also contains deposition beyond the pleadings with regard to his filing of various RTIs. The affidavit also mentioned certain judgments which is not desirable while leading the evidence. In the detailed cross-examination, he admitted that a partition suit was filed by late Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chopra, his uncle on 05.04.1968 against his father deceased late Lt. Col. Joginder Singh, Smt. Iqbal Kaur and six others. He admitted that an order was passed on 08.09.1969. Shares have been declared by the preliminary decree dated 23.05.1969. Shares of late Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chopra and late Lt. Col Joginder Singh are as per compromise dated 08.09.1969. he admitted that after compromise Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra and late Lt. Col Joginder Singh came into possession of their respective portions in property no. E-2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He admitted that the portion mark A, B, C, D in red colour fall in the share of Sh.Gurcharan Singh and mark A, LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 9/15 B, F, E fall in the portion of late Lt. Col Joginder Singh. He further admitted that the possession was delivered to late Lt. Col Joginder Singh and late Sh.Gurcharan Singh as per compromise. He denied that late Sh.Gurcharan Singh sold his share to Smt. Mohan Devi and Smt. Dhan Bai. He further denied that the possession was handed over to both of them.
19. In volunteered statement, IP1W1 challenged the partition as well as the sale and alleged that deceased Sh.Prithavi Raj gained the possession of the property by abusing his official possession. The volunteered statement is not the part of the evidence. In detailed cross-examination, he further admitted that the mutation was taken place in the record of MCD in the name of late Lt. Col Joginder Singh and late Sh. Gurcharan Singh and half share each have been divided between them. He admitted that his father gave vacant possession of the property mark A, B, C, D to Sh.Gurcharan Singh and eastern portion of the property is in the possession of LRs of late Lt. Col Joginder Singh. The western portion of the property in in the possession of LRs of late Sh.Prithavi Raj and Smt. Sneh Lata. He admitted that DMRC has acquired 66.34 of the property in question. He denied that specific area is 29.16 approximately which is acquired by DMRC from the portion of Smt. Sneh Lata. He admitted that there is a partition wall in the property. He admitted that he is in possession of his own portion and LRs of Smt. Sneh Lata in their respective portion. He admitted that Rs.4,38,858/- had been awarded to Smt. Sneh Lata in view of acquisition.
LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 10/15
20. IP no. 1 Sh. Subh Inder Singh further examined IP1W2 Sh. Prakash Singh Rawat, UDC from L & DO office. He has brought the record pertaining to lease and conveyance deed in respect of property no. 2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He further proved the application of late Sh. Gurcharan Singh dated 14.08.1970 seeking division of the lease and lease or agreement on the basis of which Sh. S.B.S. Sital Singh paid ground rent of Rs.268.19 for the Bungalow for the period 01.04.1962 to 31.3.1963. There is no agreement on the basis of which Sh. S.B.S. Sital Singh has paid ground rent. In the cross-examination, no question or suggestion put to the witness.
21. LRs of IP No.2 also examined IP2W1 Ms. Anita Chowdhary, who proved her affidavit Ex. IP2/A and relied on letter dated 27.08.2003 issued by DMRC Ex. IPW2/4. Another letter dated 18.08.2003 issued by DMRC as Ex. Ex. IPW2/5 and Award dated 06.10.2004 as Ex. IPW2/6. In the affidavit she relied on the sale deed dated 05.05.1971 executed by deceased Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra in favour of Smt.Mohan Devi and Smt. Dhan Bai as Ex. IPW2/1. She further proved the Will of Smt. Dhan Bail and Smt. Mohan Devi as Ex. IPW2/2 and Ex. IPW2/3. During her examination original record brought from the court of Ms. Mahima Rai, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi with regard to sale deeds and Will of Smt.Dhan Bai and Smt. Mohan Devi and deceased Sh.Prithavi Raj.
22. In the detailed cross-examination IP2W1 Ms. Anita Chowdhary deposed that the half plot of the property in question was in the name of his parents Sh.Prithvi Raj and LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 11/15 Smt. Sneh Lata as per the Wills. He denied the suggestion that all mutation orders were obtained from L & DO and MCD by fraud.
23. IP2W2 Ms. Sangeeta Chowdhary also appeared in the witness box and proved affidavit Ex. IP2W2/A and relied on already exhibited documents by IP2W1. In the cross- examination, she deposed that the property in question was purchased by her 'Nani' and 'Dadi'. Thereafter, inherited by her mother and father. She further deposed that her father also executed a Will in favour of her mother Smt. Sneh Lata. The mother executed a Will in favour of LRs. The documents are before the civil court, therefore, she cannot produce them. She further deposed that she cannot produce the supplementary deed dated 04.02.1971 as filed before the civil court. She deposed that she is not aware of preliminary decree passed in respect of property in question. She further deposed that she is not aware of any compromise between late Sh.Gurcharan Singh and late Lt. Col. Joginder Singh dated 08.09.1969.
24. LRs of IP No.2 also initially examined Ms. Mamta Chowdhary but later on she failed to appear and evidence of LR of IP no.2 was closed as per order dated 30.07.2016.
25. As per claim of IP No.1, the property in question i.e. E-2/11, East Patel Nagar, Delhi having total area of 800 sq. yds., out of which 79.34 sq. yds. of land acquired by the LAC. The property in question originally allotted to Sardar Bahadur Sardar Sital Singh, grand father of IP No.1 vide lease deed dated 22.11.1950. He died intestate on 09.07.1963.
LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 12/15 Thereafter, litigation took place between father of IP No.1 and his brother late Sh. Gurcharan Singh. It is admitted in the cross-examination by IP No.1 that a partition suit was filed on 25.04.1968. A preliminary decree was also passed on 08.09.1969. Thereafter, his deceased father and late Sh.Gurcharan Singh entered into a compromise dated 08.09.1969. They implemented the partition and get the possession of respective shares in the property in question. IP No.1 admitted to the extent that portion A, B, C, D was in the possession of Sh. Gurcharan Singh and portion A, B, F, E is in his possession. There exits a partition wall. As per record till today the partition has not been set aside by any court of law. It is further on record that in pursuance of their partition and possession in the MCD record, the mutation had also taken place. Till today, no civil court or any court of law set aside the mutation in favour of father of IP No.1 and his uncle late Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chopra.
26. LRs of IP No.2 proved the sale deed Ex. IPW2/1 entered into between Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Mohan Devi and Smt. Dhan Bai. In pursuance of sale deed, the half portion was sold by Sh. Gurcharan Singh, uncle of IP No.1. Thereafter as per Will dated 23.05.1971 Ex. IP2/2, it was inherited by Sh. Prithvi Raj and Smt. Sneh Lata, mother and father of LRs of IP No.2. After death of IP no.2, LRs are in the possession of half portion of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 03.05.1971. It is admitted that the referred dispute is with regard to total acquired land of 66.34 sqm out of total land of 800 sq. yds. It is further admitted on record that half portion of each IP has been acquired. It is admitted and proved on record by LRs of IP No.2 that they are the LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 13/15 successors of Smt. Mohan Devi and Smt. Dhan Bai, who purchased the half portion of the property from uncle of IP no.1 Sh. Gurcharan Singh vide sale deed. The sale deed still as on today hold good. In my considered opinion, the IP no.1 is entitled to half share of the compensation and LRs of IP no.2 Smt.Sneh Lata are entitled to half share of the acquired land.
ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
27. In view of my discussion and observation on issue no.1 above, it is held that IP No. 1 and 2 are entitled for half share each in the total compensation amount of Rs.7,96,876/- pertaining to land measuring 66.34 sqm in property No. 2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
28. The reference is answered accordingly.
29. Before parting with the case, it is pertinent to mention here that IP No. 1 is contesting the present claim in person. However, he is not less than any legal knowledgeable lawyer or pleader because he has drafted hundreds of applications through the trial on each and every date of hearing. Most of them are filed only to derail the proceedings and delay the trial. He has consumed most of the time in filing misc. applications, which are meritless. Therefore, I impose cost of Rs.1 lac upon the IP No.1 Sh. Subh Inder Singh, which shall be deducted from the awarded share of his compensation and remaining amount shall be released to him.
LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 14/15
30. A copy of this judgment be placed in the case file pertaining to reference under Section 18 of the Act, if any and a copy be sent to LAC (West).
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 7th January, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 07.01.2017 LAC No. 30A/10/04 (New No.58/16) Union of India vs. Shub Inder Singh & others 15/15