Delhi District Court
Lac No. 1/A/10/02 Union Of India vs . Jai Bhagwan & Ors 1/19 on 27 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC - 1/A/10/02
Unique Case ID No. 02401C5777822004
Union of India
versus
1. Shri Jai Bhagwan
S/o Shri Inder,
R/o Village Bakkarwala,
Delhi.
2. Shri Charan Singh (deceased)
Through his LRs
a) Smt. Hoshyari Devi (wife)
b) Sh. Dharam Pal (son)
c) Sh. Ved Pal (son)
d) Smt. Phool (Daughter)
e) Smt. Omwati (Daughter)
f) Smt. Santosh (Daughter)
g) Smt. Kamlesh (Daughter)
h) Smt. Vimla (Daughter)
i) Smt. Urmila (Daughter)
j) Smt. Kusam (Daughter)
All R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
3. Shri Kishan
S/o Shri Mansha Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 1/19
4. Sh. Mahabir Singh
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
5. Sh. Satbir Singh
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
6. Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Shri Umed Singh
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
7. Sh. Baljit Singh
S/o Shri Chandi Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
8. Sh. Ram Pal
S/o Shri Chandi Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
9. Sh. Hari Prakash
S/o Shri Dharam Singh
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
10. Sh. Bal Kishan (deceased)
a) Smt. Prem (widow)
b) Sh. Rajesh (deceased) (son)
c) Sh. Brijesh (son)
All residents of H.No. 381/12, Prem Nagar,
main Bus Stand, Main Road,
Near Rajkiya Chikitsalya,
Gurgaon (Haryana).
11. Sh. Daya Kishan
S/o Sh. Jage Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
12. Sh. Rajinder Kumar
S/o Shri jage Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
13. Sh. Suresh
S/o Sh. Jage Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 2/19
14. Sh. Vijinder
S/o Sh. Jage Ram
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
15. Shri Rajendra Dutt
S/o Late Shri Ranjit
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
16. Sh. Kishan Dutt
S/o Sh. Late Shri Ranjit
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
17. Sh. Braham Dutt
S/o Late Sh. Ranjit
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
18. Sh. Rameshwar Dutt
S/o Late Shri Ranjit
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
19. Sh. Jag Dutt (deceased)
Through his LRs
a) Smt. Krishna Devi (widow)
b) Smt. Kanta (Daughter)
c) Sh. Satish Kumar (son)
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
20. Sh. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
21. Sh. Jagbir Singh
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
22. M/s. Super Agro Pvt. Ltd.
R/o 38/1, East Punjabi Bagh,
Through Director Pawan Kumar
....Claimants
Award No. : 09/97-98
Village : Bakkarwala
Date of Award : 12.12.1997
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 3/19
Date of institution of the case : 17.05.2002
Date of reserving of judgment : 07.04.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.04.2016
(Reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The present reference referred by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector' under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect of award no. 9/97-98 in respect of the land measuring 48 Bigha 7 Biswas in Village Bakkarwala as per Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.5,87,411/-. The interested parties are mentioned herein above. The Collector has referred the dispute as follows:
"The apportionment of compensation is disputed by Sh. Pawan Kumar who claims to have purchased parcel of land acquired & by other owners who claim that notwithstanding khasra Nos. mentioned in sale deed, Sh. Pawan Kumar is in possession of land equal to the area purchased. The parcel of land, which he physically occupies is different from the parcel of land from which land has been acquired. The land acquired and taken over by the Govt. belongs to that parcel of land which is in physical possession of other owners as per their certified area recorded in joint Khata."
The Collector in the Naksha Muntazimn has given a special note in the foot to the effect that:
(1). Possession has not been taken of Khasra LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 4/19 No. 15//8 (0-9) and Khasra No. 15/9 (1-04) total area (2-03).
(2). Calculation of area (2-3) has not been done while acquired was (4-7).
(3) Serial No. 19, 21, 27 have sold their share.
2. Notice of the reference issued to all the Interested Persons.
3. The amount of compensation sent by the Collector has already been deposited in treasury as per order dated 17.05.2002.
4. In pursuance of notice, IP No.1 Shri Kishan S/o Sh. Mansa Ram filed claim. It is stated that the land under acquisition is a part of joint Khewat but on account of family partition which took place during the lifetime of fore fathers was in actual cultivatory possession of Sh. Rajindra Dutt, Sh. Rameshwar Dutt, Sh. Kishan Dutta, Sh. Braham Dutt and Sh. Satish Kumar. The other co-sharers have no right or interest in the same. The Objector has his house and he had also sold part of his land in Kila Nos. 9/13/2, 18 & 23/2 of village Bakkarwala, Delhi. It is prayed that compensation of land under acquistion be paid to Sh. Rajendra Dutt, Sh. Rameshwar Dutt, Sh. Kishan Dutt, Sh. Braham Dutt and Sh.Satish Kumar.
5. IP Nos. 15 to 18 and Sh. Satish S/o late Sh. Jag Dutt (LR's of IP No.19) filed claim. It is stated that the IP Nos. 15 to 19 were having a joint Khewat Khatauni No. 307 along with other Khatedars, namely, Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Inder, LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 5/19 Sh. Charan Singh S/o Sh. Mansa Ram, Siri Krishan S/o Sh. Mansa Ram, Sh. Mahavir Singh and Sh. Satbir sons of late Sh. Suraj Bhan, Sh. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Umed Singh, Sh. Baljit Singh and Sh. Ram Pal sons of late Sh. Chandgi Ram, Sh. Hari Prakash S/o Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Bal Kishan S/o Sh. Daya Kishan, Sh. Rajender, Sh. Suresh and Sh. Vijender sons of late Sh. Jage Ram, Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Jagbir Singh sons of Sh. Bhim Singh as mentioned in Naksha Muntzim at Sl. No. 19 to 39, as per Khatauni for the year 1989-90. It is stated that in the revenue records the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 9/13/2, 14, 17, 18, 23/2, 13/21, 25/1, 15/1 and 16/1 and total 18 numbers measuring 78 bighas 3 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala comprising of khata No. 307 Min/225 Min constitute a joint khewat was mutually partitioned during the period of their ancestors and the co- sharers/bhumidhars have been cultivating their respective fields without interference of each others.
6. It is further stated that in the year 1989, due to notification under the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of the Fragmentation) Act, 1948, a Consolidation Officer was appointed to carry out the consolidation work in the village and at that time, the co- sharers gave a joint application to the Consolidation Officer dated 15.09.1989, stating therein that as a result of mutual family settlement, they are in possession of their respective lands and are cultivating the same in the same manner on account of mutual family settlement and thereafter certain co-sharers out of their lands in their possession have further transferred the part of the suit lands to the various persons, who are either Harijans or Balmikis by mode of either lease or LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 6/19 sale and upon which such transferees are residing after constructing their houses and such areas were to be deducted from the shares of those co-sharers who had sold/transferred lands out of their lands and that the joint khewat be partitioned by recognizing their family partition.
7. It is further stated that out of aforesaid joint Khewat, Kila No. 14 Min (South) (1-12) and 17 (4-16) of rectangle no. 9 are in possession of IP Nos. 15 to 19 and similarly Kila No. 13/25/1 Min. (West) (0-10) and 15/3, 4, 7 & 8 are in possession of the IP Nos. 15 to 19. The entire Khewat belonged to late Sh. Mansa Ram (1/4th share), late Sh. Jai Lal (1/4th share), late Sh Ranjit Singh (1/3rd share) and late Pt. Daya nand (/16th share) which was sold by him to late Sh.Bhim Singh. Charan Singh, Inder Singh sons of late Shri Mansa were in possession of their 1/4th share in Kila No. 13/21, 25 Min., 16/1, 16/10, 9/18 (2-0) (South), 23/2 (2-16). Similarly, the legal heirs of late Sh. Jai Lal, namely, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Jage Ram and Sh. Suraj Bhan, Sh. Baljit Singh, Sh. Umed Singh and Sh. Ram Pal sons of Sh. Chandgi were in possession of 9/13, 18 Min. (2-07) (North), 13/25 Min, 15/1 (4-16) while late Bhima, subsequent transferee of Sh.Daya Nand Sharma was in possession of 15/2 and 9, 9/14 Min. (North) (3-04) and to this effect, the application was given to the Consolidation Officer to record the partition by recognizing their mutual family division on the spot, which is continuing from the days of their ancestors.
8. It is further stated that the land belonged to other co-sharers except the claim in rectangle No. 9 have raised construction either themselves or their subsequent LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 7/19 transferees, where they are living. The land of the claimants comprising of 9/14 Min. and 17 is agricultural and is in their actual cultivatory possession excluding the other co-sharers. It is stated that the other co-sharers wanted to sell their lands in the year 1996 and then the IP Nos. 15 to 19 sent registered notice to them through their Counsel dated 16.08.1996, notifying them about the above family settlement and to respect the separate possession and to confirm that they will not claim any right, title or interest in respect of the portion of the land of joint holding in possession of the IP Nos. 15 to 19 at any point of time either in acquisition or in any other manner whatsoever. Copy of the said notice has been filed along with the claim. It is stated that the IP Nos. 15 to 19 received notice in July, 1996 and the IP Nos. 15 to 19 filed their claim/objections with the Land Acquisition Collector, who used to sit in Nangloi, wherein a request was made to make the payment to the claimants/IP Nos. 15 to 19. The factum of the mutual family arrangement/ partition was also submitted by the claimants/ IP Nos. 20 and 21, namely, Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Jagbir Singh S/o late Sh. Bhim Singh.
9. It is further stated that IP Nos. 15 to 19 filed claim/objections at the office of Collector, which was duly received at the office of the Collector vide diary No. 1169 dated 01.07.1996 and again another application was moved by the IP Nos. 15 to 19 through their Counsel to the Collector, Nangloi on 15.12.1997. The IP Nos. 15 to 19 also filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act which was received by the office of Collector, Punjabi Bagh at Sl. No. 257/SDM/PB dated 28.01.1998. The IP Nos. 15 to 19 also moved application dated 18.03.1999 beofre the Collector, LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 8/19 Nangloi, which was received in the said office at Sl. No. 5902/SDM/PB/99 on 19.03.1999 and request was made to make the payment of the compensation to them. A joint application was signed by other co-sharers was also given to the Collector, which was received on 04.05.1999.
10. It is further stated that the IP nos. 15 to 19 further moved application before the Collector, Nangloi, which was received at his office at Sl. No. 8340/SDM on 17.05.1999. It is stated that despite the award No. 9/97-98 was announced, no compensation was paid to the IP Nos. 15 to 19 and therefore, they have moved application dated 15.05.2001. The IP Nos. 15 to 19 further approached the Executive Engineer, CD-VIII. A letter No. F.21 (12)/EE/KEIS/DB/96-98 dated 14.05.2002 was sent by Sh. C.L. Duggal, Executive Engineer, CD-VIII to ADM/LAC (West), Ram Pura, Delhi to make payment to the land holders immediately. IP No.15 Sh. Rajendra Dutt also moved application before the Collector as well as before the aforesaid Executive Engineer.
11. It is further stated that certain co-sharers, namely, Suresh (IP No. 13), Rajender (IP No.12), Daya Kishan (IP No. 11), Vijender (IP No.14), Dharam Pal (S/o IP No.2), Jitender & Rajesh (sons of IP no.10), Siri Kishan (IP No.3), Mahavir (IP No.4), Vijay (IP No.6), Ram Pal (IP No.8) and Jai Bhagwan (IP No.1), filed affidavits and also gave statements before Sh. B.S. Jaglan, Collector, Nangloi, stating that on account of mutual family partition, the land acquired under the Award in question, belongs to the IP No. 15 to 19 and they are entitled to receive the compensation to the exclusion of the other co-sharers. IP Nos. 15 to 19 also served notices LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 9/19 through their Counsel dated 31.08.2001 under Section 34 of the Act.
12. It is further stated that the IP No. 22 belongs to the family of Ganga Bishan Gupta and as per records, the sale deed of the land out of Khata No. 307 Min. by M/s. Super Agro Private Limited - IP No. 22 appears to have been purchased after the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act against the provisions of Delhi Land Restrictions on Transfer Act, 1972, as also in contravention of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and therefore, the alleged sale deed in favour of IP No. 22 is illegal and do not confer any right, title or interest in law on them. Mutation in favour of the said company is also illegal and contrary to law without verification of the factum of possession on spot as is apparent from the fact that the said company is raising claim in respect of the land under acquisition, which is exclusively in possession of the IP Nos. 15 to 19. Mutation does not confer any right to the IP No. 22.
13. It is further stated that for the reasons set out in detail, the claimants/ IP Nos. 15 to 19 being in exclusive possession on account of old family arrangements prevailing since the time of their ancestors, are entitled to received compensation to the exclusion of the other co-sharers as per Naksha Muntzim or in the least IP Nos. 1 to 14 and 20 to 22 are not entitled to claim or receive compensation. It is prayed that the claimants/ IP Nos. 15 to 19 be paid compensation of Killa No. 15/3 Min (1-2) & 8 Min (1-2) of Village Bakkarwala, acquired vide Award No. 9/97-98, Bakkarwala, Delhi, along with interest to the exclusion of the other IPs.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 10/19
14. IP Nos. 20 & 21, namely, Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh.Jagbir Singh also filed claim. It is stated that the IP Nos. 20 & 21 are co-bhumidhars to the extent of 1/6th share in the joint holding comprised in Khata/Khewat No. 307/225 min of village Bakkarwala, Delhi. It is stated that the father of the IP Nos. 20 & 21, namely, Sh. Bhim Singh was co-bhumidhar to the extent of 1/6th share in the joint holding comprised in Khata/Khewat No. 307/225 min of Village Bakkarwala, who expired on 19.06.1995 and after his death the bhumidhari rights in the joint holding were mutated in the revenue record in the names of the claimants/ IP Nos. 20 & 21.
15. It is further stated that the claimants/ IP Nos. 20 & 21 along with other co-bhumidars were in cultivating possession fo the land comprised in khasra nos. 15/3 min (1-
2) and 8 min (1-2) total measuring 2 Bigha 4 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala, Delhi and the same has been acquired. It is stated that both the claimants/ IP Nos. 20 & 21 are in possession of the acquired land along with other co-bhumidhars at the time of acquisition, therefore, entitled to compensation to the extent of 1/6 share i.e. 1/12 each out of the acquired land.
16. Reply to the claim of IP Nos. 20 & 21 filed on behalf of IP Nos. 15 to 18. It is stated that the land under acquisition has been exclusively in cultivatory possession of IP Nos. 15 to 18 to the exclusion of other co-sharers on account of Hissedari possession. It is stated that all the co- sharers in mutual family settlement has separated their land and were in their respective Hissedari possession. It is further LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 11/19 stated that late Sh. Dayan Nand Sharma, who was also co- bhumidhar and belong to the family of the answering IPs, had sold his share and given his Hissedari possession to late Sh.Bhim Singh, father of IP Nos. 20 & 21. The IP Nos. 20 & 21 had also filed claim objections before the Collector dated 01.07.1996 stating that the land under acquisition is in the cultivatory possession of IP Nos. 15 to 18 to the exclusion of the others and they are entitled to claim compensation of the land. The said claim of the IP Nos. 20 & 21 was filed by them before the Collector vide No. 2756/SDM/PB dated 08.12.1997. It is stated that the claim of IP No. 20 & 21 be dismissed.
17. IP No. 22 M/s. Superb Agro Expo Pvt. Ltd. also filed claim. It is stated that the applicant/IP No. 22 is a co- bhumidhar to the extent of ¼ share in the joint holding comprised in Khata/Khewat No. 307/225 min of Village Bakarwala, Delhi vide sale deed dated 10.04.1997 executed by Sh. Srikishan son of Sh. Mansa Ram, Sh. Jai Bhagwan son of Sh. Inder Singh and Sh. Hari Prakash son of Sh. Dharam Singh, all residents of village Bakkarwala, Delhi, who are co- bhumidhars in the above said joint holding to the extent of 1/12th share each. The sale deed dated 10.04.1997 was executed and got registered after obtaining NOC from the Competent Authority vide no. 2581 dated 08.04.1997. Thereafter, IP No. 22 applied to grant mutation in its favour and the same was mutated in its name in the revenue record on 10.09.1998. It is stated that the said Srikishan, Jai Bhagwan and Hari Prakash also handed over actual, physical and cultivating possession of the land purchased by the applicant from them vide sale deed ated 10.04.1997 on 10.04.1997 and since then the applicant/IP No. 22 is in actual, LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 12/19 physical and cultivating possession of ¼ share in the joint holding.
18. It is further stated that the applicant along with other co-bhumidhars was in cultivating possession of the land comprised in khasra nos. 15/3 min (1-2) and 8 min (1-2), total measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala, Delhi, which has been acquired vide the Award in question. Since the applicant was one of the co- bhumidhars and in cultivating possession of the acquired land along with other co-bhumidhars at the time of acquisition, the applicant is one of the interested persons in the acquired land and thus entitled to receive the amount of compensation to the extent of ¼ share out of the acquired land. It is prayed that ¼ of the amount of compensation qua agricultural land comprised in khasra nos.15/3 min (1-2) and 8 min (1-2), total measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala, Delhi, which was acquired vide the award in question.
19. Reply filed on behalf of the IP No. 15 to 18 and Satish, LR of IP No. 19 to the claim of the respondent no. 22. It is stated that the IP No. 22 has not come with clean hands. It has suppressed the fact that there was mutual partition of the Khewat during the period of the ancestors and the co- sharers were in possession of their respective areas of the land as stated by the answering IPs in their claim petition dated 18.12.2002. The facts stated therein are reiterated as correct. It is further stated that in the alleged sale deed, the factum of the partition has not been mentioned and from whom IP No. 22 has purchased the land in question. It is stated that Jai Bhagwan is having his house in Khasra No. LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 13/19 9/18, Shri Kishan S/o Sh. Mansa Ram is having house in Khasra No. 9/23/2 and Hari Prakash S/o Shri Dharam Singh is having house in Khasra No. 9/18 i.e. the fields which were in their possession on account of the partition. It is further stated that there are houses of Mahinder Singh, Man Singh, Sube, Jai Singh, Daya nand, Bholu, Balmat, Udai Singh, Phool Singh, Dharam Singh, Balley Ram, Ram Singh, Khazan Singh and Ram Diya in khasra no. 9/13/2 while in Khasra No. 9/18, houses of Satbir and Mahavir sons of Suraj Bhan, Baljeet S/o Chandgi Ram, Vijay S/o Umed, Ram Pal S/o Chandgi Ram, Hari Prakash S/o Dharam Singh, Vijender S/o Sumer Singh, Suresh, Daya Kishan, Rajinder, Vijender and Bal Kishan sons of Jage (co-sharers), Dharam pal and Ved pal sons of Charan Singh, Joginder s/o Mehar Singh, Mahinder Singh S/o Bharat Singh, Sumer Singh S/o Bharat Singh are having their houses in Khasra No. 9/18 while Jai Bhagwan S/o Inder Singh, Balley Ram, Gahubir Singh, Chand Ram, Sri Kishan S/o mansa Ram, Phool Singh, Mahinder Singh, Attray and Raghubir are having houses in Khasra no. 9/23/2, which they constructed after purchasing the same from those co-sharers, namely, Chandgi Ram, Dharma, Jagey, Charan Singh, Inder and Shri Kishan, who by virtue of the partition were in possession of Khasra No. 9/13/2, 18 and 23/2. The IP - respondent no. 22 having allegedly purchased the share of Jai Bhagwan, Shri Kishan and Hari Prakash, above named has not taken possession of the said part of the land. The alleged NOC appears to have been given by the Competent Authority is a non-application of mind and the same is without the consent in writing or knowledge of the IP Nos. 15 to 19, co-bhumidars. Entire area of Khasra No. 9/13/2, 18 and 23/2 has houses of the above named co-owners.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 14/19
20. On reply on merits, it is stated that the obtaining of NOC and the entering and sanctioning of mutation are result of non-application of mind and the answering IPs have no knowledge about the same. The alleged NOC is not binding on the answering IPs. It is stated that IP No. 22 has no right to claim any right and its claim is liable to be dismissed.
21. All IPs were served. Claims were filed by IP No. 3, IP No. 15 to 19, IP No. 20 & 21 and IP No. 22. Remaining IPs have not filed their claims. IP No. 9, 11 to 14, 1 and 4 to 8 were proceeded ex-parte.
22. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 10.07.2009:
1. Which of IP is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent?
2. Relief.
23. IP Nos. 15 to 19 examined Sh. Rajender Dutt as IP15-19/W1, Sh. Prahlad as IP15-19/W2, Sh. Tejbir Singh as IP15-19/W3 and Sh. Sunil Kumar as IP15-19/W4. Thereafter evidence of IP No. 15 to 19 was closed vide statement of Sh. Rajender Dutt, IP No. 15 dated 21.08.2010.
24. IP No. 22 examined Sh. Pawan Gupta as IP22/W1, Sh. Rakesh as IP22/W-2. Thereafter, evidence of IP No. 22 was closed vide order dated 04.09.2010 as per statement of Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 22.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 15/19
25. My finding on Issue no. 1 is as under:
26. Let us peruse the testimony of witnesses led by both the parties i.e. the interested persons and the objectors.
27. Sh. Rajender Dutt - IP15-19/W1, submitted that Khatta No. 307 Min/225 constitute joint Khewat and same as mutually partitioned during the period of their ancestors and co-sharers/Bhumidhars have been cultivating their respective fields without interference of each other. He further submitted that in the year 1989, Consolidation Officer was appointed to carry out the consolidation work. All the co- sharers filed joint application before the Consolidation Officer as per mutual family settlement. He has drawn the attention to the application filed before the Consolidation Officer as Ex. AW1/2. This is the original application available on record. He further submits that a notice dated 16.08.1996 also served upon 14 co-sharers explaining that IP No. 15 to 19 are in possession of the respective land as per the family settlement and joint possession of the land in question has already been specified in the notice and they were legally advised and in default the legal action would be taken. He further submits that the land in question comprising of 9/14 Min. and 17 is agricultural land and IP No. 15 to 19 are in only cultivatory possession excluding the other co-sharers. Therefore, IP No. 15 to 19 are entitled for the entire compensation and not the IP No. 22.
28. Sh. V.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for the IP No. 22submits that the application filed by IP No. 15 to 19 before the consolidation officer has never been acted upon. No LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 16/19 revenue record has been produced regarding the recognition of the alleged family settlement among the co-sharers. He further submits that the legal notice as alleged by IP No. 15 to 19 never received by IP No. 22. He further submits that in the cross-examination, IP 15-19/W1 Sh. Rajender Dutt admitted that the sale deed in favour of IP No. 22 and mutation entered into revenue record never challenged by them. He further pointed out that during the cross- examination of other witnesses IP15-19/W3 Sh. Tejvir Singh and IP15-19/W4 Sh. Sunil Kumar, they denied the knowledge of any family settlement as alleged by the IP15-19/W1 Sh.Rajender Dutt. He further submits that on the other hand, IP No. 22 proved original sale deed Ex. IP22/W1 and revenue record, which shows Bhumidhari rights and ownership of IP No. 22 vide Ex. IP22/W-2/ 1 to 6. Ld. Counsel further submits that IP No. 22 is the owner of the land in question and entitled to 1/4th of the compensation qua the agricultural land comprising of Khasra Nos. 15/3 min (1-2) and 8 min (1-2) total measuring 2 Bigha 4 Biswas situated in revenue estate of village Bakkarwala which has been acquired by the LAC vide award No. 9/97-98 dated 12.12.1997.
29. I have considered the respective submissions of both the Ld. Counsels and perused the record and testimony of witnesses. IP15-19/W1 Sh. Rajender Dutt relied heavily on an application filed before the Consolidation Officer for partition in pursuance to the family settlement. It is admitted by IP15-19/W1 that this application never adjudicated and acted upon by Consolidation Officer. Interestingly the original application filed on record and it is not explained when the original application filed before the court, which application LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 17/19 filed before the Consolidation Officer. No record has been summoned to prove the fact that IP No. 15 to 19 have filed Ex. AW1/2 before the Consolidation Officer. In the absence of corroboration through the revenue record Ex. AW2/1 is not proved in accordance with law. Further, I have gone through the legal notice dated 16.08.1996 alleged to be sent to 14 co- sharers Ex. AW1/3. However, as per AD Cards proved Ex. AW1/16 to 25, legal notice was never served upon the addressees.
30 Now coming to the testimony of Sh. Rajender Dutt
- IP15-19/W1, in the cross-examination, it is admitted that Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Mansa Ram and Sh. Hari Prakash are the co- sharers in the land in question. He further deposed that the fact of sale deed came to the knowledge during the course of present case proceedings. He admitted that IP 15 to 19 never challenged the sale deed and mutation carried out in the name of IP No. 22 on the basis of sale deed Ex. IP22/W1. He further admitted that there was no consolidation proceedings taken place and no orders have been passed on joint application of separating the Khatas. He further admitted that no separate possession of co-sharers was record in the revenue records.
31 Further, IP15 -19/W3 Sh. Tejvir Singh and IP 15
-19/W4 Sh. Sunil Kumar admitted that they have no knowledge regarding any family settlement. He further admitted that IP No. 1, 3 and 9 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh.Mansa Ram and Sh. Hari Prakash used to cultivate their respective land in possession. It establishes that all the three IPs No. 1, 3 and 9 were in exclusive possession and also sold part of land to IP No. 22.
LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 18/19
32. On the other hand, IP No. 22 proved on record by proving the original sale deed Ex. IP22/W1 in regard to purchase of the land from IP Nos. 1, 3 and 9. He further proved that in the revenue record, mutation was also carried out in his name and same has not been challenged by of the IPs no. 15 to 19.
33. In my considered opinion IP No. 22 proved that the land in question i.e. Khasra Nos. 15/3 min (1-2) and 8 min (1-2) total measuring 2 Bigha 4 Biswas stands in their name and possession in the revenue record. On the other hand, IP No. 15 to 19 failed to prove their respective possession and ownership as per revenue record. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, issue no.1 is decided in favour of Ip No. 22 and against the IP No. 15 to 19 and remaining IPs, who failed to lead any evidence. ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
34. In view of my findings on issue no.1, IP No. 22 is entitled for 1/4th of compensation qua agricultural land comprising in Khasra Nos. 15/3 min (1-2) and 8 min (1-2) total measuring 2 Bigha 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala, Delhi which was acquired vide Award No. 09/97-98 dated 12.12.1997.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 27th April, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 27.04.2016 LAC No. 1/A/10/02 Union of India vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors 19/19