Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs . Gaon Sabha And Shri Yad Ram on 17 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 08/11/04
In the matter of :
Union of India vs. Gaon Sabha and Shri Yad Ram
1. Gaon Sabha of Village Dhoolsiras,
District South West,
New Delhi. ... IP No. 1
2. Shri Yad Ram
S/o Shri Dalip Singh
R/o Village and Post Office Dhoolsiras,
New Delhi. ... IP No. 2
Village : Dhoolsiras
Award No.: 27/200203
Filed on : 16.02.2004
Received after
Remand on : 26.04.2010
Heard on : 16.08.2011
Decided on : 17.08.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a reference under Section 3031 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Vide Award No. 27/200203, a large chunk of land LAC No.08/11/04 Page 1/23 including Land in Kh. No. 5/19 (4 bigha and 9 biswa) of village Dhoolsiras was acquired for Dwarka PhaseII, Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi.
3. As per Collector, compensation payable for the land in question was Rs. 19,55,452/. However, compensation was not released in favour of anyone because the recorded owner of the land in question was IP No. 1, Gaon Sabha (Dhoolsiras), but objections were filed by IP No. 2, Shri Yad Ram, against release of compensation in favour of IP No. 1.
4. Hence, this reference was sent by LAC to this Court.
5. Gaon Sabha, IP No. 1, as well as Shri Yad Ram, IP No. 2 both have filed their claim petitions.
6. In the claim petition of Gaon Sabha, it is stated that Gaon Sabha was owner of the land which was never allotted to anyone. Gaon Sabha was in possession of the land in question at the time of acquisition and Gaon Sabha had handed over the possession of the land in question to the Government of India at the time of acquisition.
7. IP No. 2, Shri Yad Ram, has filed reply to the claim of Gaon Sabha and stated that the Gaon Sabha had passed a resolution on 15.05.86 and had allotted the land in question in his favour. It is further stated that SDM, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi had admitted in its order dated 03.11.97 that IP No. 2 was in possession of the land in LAC No.08/11/04 Page 2/23 question. Therefore, the question of handing over the possession of land by Gaon Sabha to Collector does not arise.
8. It is further stated that IP No. 2 was in possession of land in question but the Revenue Department did not affect the khasra girdawari in the name of IP No. 2 who had to file a Civil Writ No. 836/01 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order on 19.12.2001 directing the revenue authority for affecting khasra girdawari in the name of IP No. 2. It is further stated that Halka Patwari in reports dated 23.12.1994 and 27.03.2001 had reported that IP No. 2 was in possession and had cultivated crop wheat. Therefore, IP No. 2 prayed that claim of IP No. 1 be rejected.
9. In his claim petition, IP No. 2 Shri Yad Ram stated that he was a landless person of the village and Gaon Sabha had allotted him land in question under Twenty Point Programme in order to encourage reclamation of waste land in Delhi. Reliance is also placed on resolution passed by Gaon Sabha on 05.05.1986 allotting land in question in favour of IP No. 2, certificate of allotment, receipt for lease money deposited by IP No. 2 and possession letter given to him by Gaon Sabha.
10. IP No. 2 has stated that Gaon Sabha, Dhoolsiras had initiated proceedings under Section 86 A of Delhi Land Reforms Act against IP No. 2 in the year 1996 in Case No. 110/RA/96 but the Revenue Assistant had withdrawn the notice under Section 86 A of LAC No.08/11/04 Page 3/23 Delhi Land Reforms Act against IP No. 2 vide order dated 03.11.1997 because the land in question was allotted to IP No. 2 with the consent of Gaon Sabha. For this reason, proceedings under Section 86 A of Delhi Land Reforms Act were held not maintainable in the eyes of law by the Revenue Assistant.
11. IP No. 2 has further stated that he had successfully reclaimed the land and after reclamation he had filed a suit under Section 74 (4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for declaring him Bhumidar in the Court of Revenue Assistant in the year 1994. It is stated that the Revenue Assistant had dismissed the petition and an appeal filed before the Collector against order of Revenue Assistant was also dismissed. It is stated that the second appeal before the financial commissioner was dismissed because the land in question was acquired during the pendency of second appeal and financial commissioner was left with no jurisdiction to decide the said appeal.
12. Reference is also made to Writ Petition No. 836/01 where directions were given to revenue authority to record the possession of IP No. 1, if he was found in possession.
13. IP No. 2 has stated that after reclamation of land he had acquired bhumidari rights on the basis of long and continuous physical cultivatory possession over the land in question and Gaon Sabha had extinguished its rights in the land in question by operation of law. Therefore, IP No. 2 claimed entire compensation in his favour. LAC No.08/11/04 Page 4/23
14. Gaon Sabha has filed reply to the claim of IP No. 2 and has denied that land in question was allotted by Gaon Sabha to the claimant. Gaon Sabha has denied that any resolution was passed in favour of IP No. 2 and has also denied that any allotment was made in favour of IP No. 2. It was also denied that IP No. 2 had deposited lease money with Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha also denied that IP No. 2 was an Asami at any stage and also denied that IP No. 2 ever remained in possession of land. It is also stated there was no occasion or necessity for ejectment of claimant as he never remained in possession of the land.
15. However, contents of para 6 of claim petition of IP No. 2 are admitted. Para 6 of claim petition of IP No. 2 and reply by IP No. 1 are as under: Para 6 of Claim of IP No. 2 Reply of Gaon Sabha That the Gaon Dhoolsiras had initiated the Para No. 6 of claim is a matter proceedings under Section 86A of D.L.R. Act of record. against I.P. No. 2 in the year 1996 in respect of the suit in question bearing No. 5/19 (49) in the Court of Revenue Assistant, Vasant Vihar, Delhi bearing case No. 110/RA/96, but the Revenue Assistant had withdrawn the notice under Section 86A of D.L.R. Act against the I.P. No. 2 vide order dated 03.11.1997, the copy of order is annexed hereto, because the land in question was allotted with the consent of Gaon Sabha so the proceedings under Section 86A D.L.R. Act were held not maintainable in the eyes of law.
LAC No.08/11/04 Page 5/23
16. Emphasis was placed by Gaon Sabha on the fact that there is no entry of IP No. 2 in the revenue records and application if any made by IP No. 2 to record his possession was false and frivolous. Therefore, Gaon Sabha denied in entirety that IP No. 2 had any right what to talk of bhumidari rights over land in question.
17. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: i. Whether the land in dispute was not allotted to the IP and other than Gaon Sabha legally and after taking up approval of the authority, if so what effect? i. Which of the party is entitled to get amount of compensation, and to what extent? OPP ii. Relief.
18. On behalf of petitioner, five witnesses including the petitioner entered the witness box.
19. In his evidence by way of affidavit, petitioner deposed similar facts as were deposed by him in his claim petition.
20. This witness exhibited following documents: i. Ex. CW1/5: Certified copy of order dated 03.11.97 passed by the SDM/RA, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
ii. Ex. CW1/6: Certified copy of order dated 15.09.98 passed by the SDM/RA, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
LAC No.08/11/04 Page 6/23 iii. Ex. CW1/7: Certified copy of order passed by the Collector (SW), Delhi dated 04.01.2011.
iv. Ex. CW1/8: Certified copy of order dated 13.05.2003 passed by Financial Commissioner. v. Ex. CW1/9: Application of IP No. 2 for entering crop of IP No. 2 in the revenue record.
vi. Ex.CW1/10: Report of Patwari dated 23.12.1994.
vii.Ex. CW1/11: Application for correction of khasra girdawari in the year 200001.
viii.Ex.CW1/12: Report of Patwari dated 27.03.2001. ix. Ex. CW1/13: Copy of judgment dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 836/01.
21. In his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he had no information or knowledge whether the Pradhan had obtained the approval of allotment from higher authorities. He stated that he was allotted this land because he was a defence personnel. He further stated that he had no other agricultural land in the village but had a residential plot measuring 120 sq. yds. which was also allotted by Gaon Sabha. He admitted that his suit for declaration as bhumidari was dismissed by the ADM and appeal filed against the order was also dismissed.
22. PW2 is Shri Sat Narain who was the village Pradhan when land in question was allotted in favour of IP No. 2.
23. Being a signatory on resolution dated 05.05.1986 passed for allotment of Gaon Sabha land for reclamation, this witness LAC No.08/11/04 Page 7/23 exhibited resolution as Ex. PW2/1. In this resolution, name of IP No. 2 is shown at serial no. 48. PW2 also proved allotment certificate as Ex. PW2/2, possession certificate as Ex. CW1/4 and Form '37' as Ex. PW2/3.
24. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he did not allot the land as per rules to IP No. 2. He denied the suggestion that he had allotted the land to IP No. 2 because he was a family member being son of his brother. However, he admitted that he had not taken approval from Director of Panchayat.
25. PW3 and PW4 are Shri Ratan Singh and Shri Sube Singh respectively who claimed that they were permanent residents of village Dhoolsiras and stated that under Twenty Point Programme, Gaon Sabha Dhoolsiras had allotted agricultural land to landless and military persons including IP No. 2 in the year 1986. Both the witnesses deposed that they had seen IP No. 2 cultivating the land for several years and Gaon Sabha never disturbed the possession of IP No. 2 over the land in question.
26. PW3, Shri Ratan Singh denied all the suggestions given by counsel for the Gaon Sabha including the suggestion that the land in question was barren (banjar).
27. Similarly, PW4 also denied all the suggestions given by counsel for Gaon Sabha and further stated that he has no knowledge in respect of passing of resolution by Director Panchayat LAC No.08/11/04 Page 8/23 regarding allotment of land to IP No. 2.
28. The last witness examined by IP No. 2 to prove his case was PW5 Shri Ashok Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, BDO Office, Najafgarh, New Delhi. This witness produced the summoned record i.e. resolution dated 05.05.1986 passed by Gaon Sabha, Dhoolsiras, record of LR 37 and allotment file in which approval had been sought and given in the year, 1986 which was exhibited as Ex. PW5/1.
29. In his crossexamination, this witness stated that he was not the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant time and in the resolution, khasra number is not mentioned and there is no approval to the resolution by competent authority.
30. On behalf of IP No. 1, Gaon Sabha, only certified copies of khasra girdawaris for the years, 198384 till 19992000 were filed which were exhibited as Ex. R1 to R15. As per these khasra girdawaris, recorded owner of the land was Gaon Sabha and the land in question was banjar.
31. Learned Predecessor of this Court vide orders dated 30.10.2007 had rejected the claim of IP No. 2 and had accepted the claim of IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha.
32. Order passed by the learned Predecessor of this Court was challenged by IP No. 2 before the Hon'ble High Court in L.A. Appeal No. 277/08.
33. Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 18.03.2010, LAC No.08/11/04 Page 9/23 following the main order dated 28.08.2008 passed in L.A. Appeal No. 323/07 remanded this reference also back to this Court for afresh adjudication after issuing notice to the Ministry of Urban Development because after urbanization of land by a notification under Section 507 of DMC Act, Gaon Sabha had ceased to exist and successor of Gaon Sabha is Ministry of Urban Development under Section 150(3) (d) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. However, rights of Ministry of Urban Development were decided without giving any opportunity to the said Ministry to contest the case.
34. After remand of this case, notice was issued to Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. However, none appeared for the said Ministry and only counsel for DDA appeared and stated that counsel for DDA will also represent the Ministry as well.
35. On behalf of DDA, notification under Section 507 of DMC Act was exhibited as Ex. RW(DDA)/X1 and notification dated 19.08.2000 was exhibited as Ex. PW(DDA)/X2. Effect of second notification would be considered at a later stage. Remaining parties did not lead any fresh evidence.
36. Besides issues framed earlier, following additional issue was also framed by learned predecessor of this Court on 26.07.2010 after the remand of the reference.
"In case, the petitioner / claimant G.S. Yad Ram is held not entitled to the compensation, then who out of the LAC No.08/11/04 Page 10/23 Gaon Sabha or UOI / DDA would be entitled to the compensation i.e. what would be the effect of the notification under Section 507 of DMC Act on the present case? OPP "
37. Arguments were addressed by Shri S.S. Dalal learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, Shri Surender Kumar, learned counsel for IP No. 2 and Shri Rajpal, learned counsel for DDA. Written arguments were also filed by the parties.
38. To prove allotment of land to him, IP No. 2 has proved on record resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 05.05.86, Ex. PW2/1 where name of IP No. 2 appears at Sl. No. 48. This resolution was proved by Sh. Sat Narain, PW2, Ex Pradhan of Village Dhulsiras. Original resolution was produced by PW5, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, BDO Office. Letter of allotment issued by Gaon Sabha under Rule 47 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was also proved as Ex. PW2/2 by Sh. Sat Narain, Ex Pradhan, PW2. Similarly, LR Form 37 issued by same Sh. Sat Narain, Ex Pradhan was proved as Ex. PW2/3.
39. Ld. Predecessor of this Court had rejected the case of IP No. 2 for breach of Rule 47 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and breach of Rule 176 of Delhi Panchayati Raj Rules, 1959.
40. After remand of the reference, Ld. Counsel for IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha instead of relying upon Rule 176 relied upon Rule 178 LAC No.08/11/04 Page 11/23 of the Delhi Panchayati Raj Rules, 1959 which reads as under: "Rule 178. Lease without premium: (1) In the case of a lease without premium transferring immovable property vested in the Gaon Panchayat a reasonable annual rent shall be reserved and made payable during the whole term of the lease and the lease or any agreement to grant lease shall not be made without the previous sanction of Gaon Panchayat by a Resolution and also with the previous sanction of the Director of Panchayats when term of lease does not exceed ten years and when the term exceeds the ten years but does not exceed thirty year with the previous sanction of the Development Commissioner and when the term exceed 30 years with the previous sanction of the Lt. Governor".
41. Rule 178 was amended on 25.11.1976. In the unamended Rule 178, previous sanction was not required from Director of Panchayats if the term of lease was less than 10 years. However, after the amendment, the previous sanction is necessary even where lease is for less than 10 years.
42. In his cross examination, PW2 Sh. Sat Narain, Ex Pradhan deposed that he had not taken permission of Director of Panchayat and further volunteered that BDO had directed him to make the allotment. PW5, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Panchayat Secretary had also deposed in cross examination that resolution is not approved by competent authority.
43. Therefore, this court also holds that allotment of land LAC No.08/11/04 Page 12/23 in dispute in favour of IP No. 2 by Gram Panchayat suffers from non compliance of Rule 178 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959.
44. However, IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha has always treated IP No. 2 as an asami in possession. Reference can be drawn to Ex. CW1/5 which is order of SDM/RA, Vasant Vihar in proceedings under Section 86 A of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in Case No. 110/RA/96.
45. Perusal of Ex. CW1/5 shows that 6 eviction proceedings were initiated in the year 1996 against 6 occupants of agricultural land on the complaint of Halqa Patwari that they were illegal occupants over land of Gaon Sabha.
46. It was noted in Ex. CW1/5 that 53 persons were allotted Gaon Sabha land vide common resolution but only 6 allotees were singled out for eviction proceedings.
47. In concluding part of the order, SDM/RA had noted that 'It has been established that the agricultural land which was allotted to the defendant by the Gaon Sabha is genuine'.
48. This order has attained finality.
49. At least one inference can be safely drawn from this order which is that in the year 19961997, IP No. 1 was in occupation of land in question and proceedings to evict IP No. 2 had finally ended in favour of IP No. 2. Consequence of the above is that Ex. P12 which is certified copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 199697 filed LAC No.08/11/04 Page 13/23 by Gaon Sabha is proved factually incorrect because inspite of proved possession of IP No. 2 over land in question for the year 19961997, possession of IP No. 2 is illegally not reflected in it.
50. Fact that IP No. 2 was treated by IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha as an asami in possession is also evident from Ex. CW1/6 which is order dated 08.09.1998 passed by SDM/RA in Case No. 5/94 which was a suit filed by IP No. 2 under Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for declaring him from asami to bhumidar.
51. The suit was dismissed by invoking Order 7 R 11 of CPC on the grounds that notice under Section 99 of Delhi Panchayati Raj Act was not served upon Gaon Sabha before filing the suit and for the reason that IP No. 2 had not followed Section 22 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and had not reported admission as asami.
52. The above shows that IP No. 2 was treated as an asami in possession but his claim for bhumidari was rejected for legal objections.
53. The submissions of Counsel for Gaon Sabha recorded in order Ex. CW1/6 are relevant which are as under: "The Ld. Counsel for the Gaon Sabha had further argued that it was the duty of the Gaon Sabha to report to the Revenue Assistant, at the end of five years that to what extent the reclamation was made by the Asami and as the Gaon Sabha did not make any report and due to want of report by the Gaon Sabha, the plaintiff himself had challenged the Act of the Gaon Sabha."
LAC No.08/11/04 Page 14/23
54. Ex. CW1/6 shows that IP No. 2 was entered as an asami over land in question in the year 1986 for 5 years. Therefore, Ex. R3 to Ex. R9 which are certified copies of Khasra Girdawaris filed by Gaon Sabha w.e.f 198687 to 199192 are also proved factually incorrect because they are not showing possession of IP No. 2 over land in question.
55. The order of SDM/RA dismissing suit of IP No. 2 filed under Section 74 of DLR Act was challenged in first appeal before the Collector (SW) Delhi. The appeal was dismissed vide orders dated 04.01.01 in Appeal No. 188/98 which is Ex. CW1/7. Yet again, admission by Gaon Sabha that IP No. 2 was an asami was reiterated and the Collector noted that "....there is no dispute that appellants are asamis as admitted by Gram Sabha....".
56. IP No. 2 further challenged the order of Collector before Financial Commissioner vide Case No. 54/01.03.2001 CA. Said order is Ex. CW1/8. The Financial Commissioner had not interferred with the impugned orders because by then the land was acquired and he had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the second appeal.
57. However in that order which is Ex. CW1/8 the Financial Collector referred to an order of Hon'ble High Court dated 18.10.01 where it was held that under Section 22 (3) it was the duty of Gaon Sabha and not the duty of asami to report allotment. Further the LAC No.08/11/04 Page 15/23 Collector noted as under: "In view of this contention of the Gaon Sabha is not tenable and the Asamis status of the appellants cannot be assailed on this ground.
In fact, there is over whelming evidence on record to substantiate the plea of the appellants that they were the allottees of the land and were admitted as Asamis. The concurrent findings given by the lower courts on this issue are well reasoned and do not require any interference from this court."
58. Finally, the Financial Commissioner, remanded those cases where land was not acquired and observed that he would have remanded present case also if land in question was not acquired.
59. In writ petition filed by IP No. 2 challenging non recording of possession of IP No. 2 in revenue records, the stand of Gaon Sabha was that "the petitioners were allotted diverse parcels of land for a period of five years only for the purposes of cultivation of the same and as per the latest revenue records, the land in question stands in the name of Gaon Dhul Siras." Copy of order dated 19.12.01 passed by Hon'ble High Court is Ex. CW1/13.
60. A perusal of order of SDM/RA, Ex. CW1/5 as per which application under Section 86 A of DLR Act was dismissed, order of SDM/RA 01.09.98, Ex. CW1/6 as per which suit of IP No. 2 to declare him bhumidar was rejected on technical grounds, order of LAC No.08/11/04 Page 16/23 Collector Ex. CW1/7, order of Financial Commissioner Ex. CW1/8 and order of Hon'ble High Court Ex. CW1/13 reveals that consistent stand of IP No. 1, Gaon Sabha is that IP No. 2 was asami.
61. In the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board: 1999(5) SCC 590 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 26 that: "It is settled law that principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppal. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code LAC No.08/11/04 Page 17/23 Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before Administrative Authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.
62. Further in para 31 of the same judgment, it is further held that: Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various Courts on these subjects. As noted above, the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, different if an issue which had been decided in an earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile law has changed or has been interpreted differently by higher forum..."
63. Therefore now in present proceedings Gaon Sabha cannot challenge Asami status of IP No. 2.
64. Possession of IP No. 2 is also inferred from the fact that IP No. 2 was an asami and application under Section 86 A of DLR Act to evict IP No. 2 from land in question was dismissed. In these circumstances, onus was on Gaon Sabha to show how and when it took back possession from IP No. 2. Mere reliance on Khasra Girdawaris where possession of IP No. 2 is not shown over land in LAC No.08/11/04 Page 18/23 question is not enough to show that Gaon Sabha had taken back possession from IP No. 2. These Khasra Girdawaris are not depicting true picture is also clear from the fact that even during pendency of eviction proceedings against IP No. 2, the Khasra Girdawaris have not shown possession of IP No. 2.
65. Therefore, it is held that even if allotment of land in question was in breach of Rule 178 of Delhi Panchayati Raj Rules, even then the evidence on record has shown that IP No. 2 was treated as an asami by Gaon Sabha and was in possession of land in question and would be entitled to such share in compensation as an asami would be.
66. In the case of M/s. Sikri Brothers vs. Union of India etc. : 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 57, it is held that after acquisition of the land, the reference court hearing reference under Section 30/31 of L.A. Act will decide the question whether an asami had reclaimed the land and had become entitled to be declared as a bhumidar.
67. However, this Court is not inclined to declare IP No. 2 as bhumidar because IP No. 2 has not even cared to place on record copy of suit filed by him under Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act to declare him bhumidar of the land. He has not filed written statement / reply of Gaon Sabha opposing his suit. Therefore, this Court is not having the benefit of pleadings of the parties in suit for LAC No.08/11/04 Page 19/23 declaring IP No. 2 as bhumidar.
68. There is no pleading of IP No. 2 even in this reference to declare him the bhumidar.
69. There is no evidence of reclamation of land on record. Although Ex. CW1/12 is a noting dated 27.03.2001 given by the Patwari that crop wheat is under cultivation over land in question but IP No. 2 has not summoned the Patwari in the Court to examine him. IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha was deprived of an opportunity to crossexamine the Patwari and elicit the truth.
70. Even PW3 and PW4 have not deposed that IP No. 2 had reclaimed the land. There is no evidence of yield from the land in question. Therefore, in absence of any pleading and evidence it cannot be declared that IP No. 2 had reclaimed the land and is therefore not entitled to be declared as bhumidar of the land in question.
71. Another reason for not declaring IP No. 2 bhumidar is that the land in question was urbanized on 24.10.1994 when notification under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act came into force. It cannot be ascertained from the records when IP No. 2 had filed his suit for declaring the bhumidar in the year 1994.
72. After urbanization of the land, Delhi Land Reforms Act ceases to apply on the land in question. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Indu Khurana vs. Union of India, dated 26.03.2010 and Sardar Singh & Anr. vs. LAC No.08/11/04 Page 20/23 Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., WP (C) No. 6789/08 dated 05.08.2010. Once the Delhi Land Reforms Act ceased to apply on the land in question there was no possibility for an asami to invoke Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act to declare him the bhumidar.
73. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Gaon Sabha Kakrola vs. Sarbati and Anr. ILR (2009) I Delhi 695 had dealt with the question of apportionment between a bhumidar and asami where asami had filed an application under Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act but before declaration could be made in his favour the land was acquired. Hon'ble High Court noted in para 12 and 16 as under: "12. It is apparent that when the acquisition proceedings resulted in the acquisition of the land commenced, the adjudicatory process contemplated by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 before the Revenue Assistant got interdicted.
16. But, with the acquisition of the land, the adjudicatory process being aborted, entitlement to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector has to be decided giving weightage to the respective claims."
74. Again in the case of Raj Singh & Anr. versus Union of India & Anr. 162 (2009) Delhi Law Times 103 (DB) the dispute was regarding apportionment between Aasami and Bhumidar. In that LAC No.08/11/04 Page 21/23 case the Hon'ble High Court referred to its earlier judgment in L.A. Appeal No. 102/2007 entitled Gaon Sabha, Kakrola versus Fateh Singh dated 28.08.2008 and noted that in the case of Fateh Singh even application for declaration as Bhumidar was filed, which was pending but the proceedings stood aborted as, in the meantime, the land was acquired. Even in such a case, the court was of the opinion that those persons could be treated as asami only.
75. In both the cases of Gaon Sabha, Kakrola (Supra) and Raj Singh (Supra) compensation to an asami and bhumidar was given in the ratio of 60% and 40% respectively.
76. Therefore, IP No. 2 is held entitled for 60% of the compensation.
77. The next question is who is entitled to receive the balance 40% of the compensation.
78. The Gaon Sabha had ceased to exist with the notification under Section 507 of DMC Act which came into force on 24.10.1994. The successor of Gaon Sabha is Ministry of Urban Development through its Secretary. However, in the notification dated 19.08.2000, it is noted that under Section 22(1) of DD Act, the powers of Central Government have been vested in Hon'ble Lt. Governor who has placed the land at the disposal of DDA. As land in question vested in Central Government and through it in favour of DDA before its acquisition, DDA will be the beneficiary of 40% of compensation LAC No.08/11/04 Page 22/23 in this reference.
79. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC (SW) for information and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on the 17th day of August, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No.08/11/04 Page 23/23