Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs . Gaon Sabha Masoodabad & Ors. on 31 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 44/09/05
In the matter of :
Union of India Vs. Gaon Sabha Masoodabad & Ors.
1. Sh. Himmat Singh
Son of Sh. Gurbax Singh
R/o H82, Shivaji Park
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
...IP No. 1
2. Sh. Shadi Lal Rawal
Son of Sh. Tirath Dass Rawal
R/o F133, Mansarovar Garden
New Delhi
...IP No. 2
3. Sh. Pratap Singh
Son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh
...IP No. 3
4. Sh. Satish Gupta
Son of Omprakash
R/o E149, Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi.
...IP No. 4
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 1 of 19
5. Sh. Himmat Singh
Son of Sh. Gurbax Singh
R/o H82, Shivaji Park
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
...IP No. 5
6. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Son of Sh. Kishan Chand
R/o B438, Raghubir Nagar
New Delhi
...IP No. 6
7. Dr. Manju Tanwar
Wife of Sh. Kanwar Singh Tanwar
R/o CB77A, Naraina Ring Road,
New Delhi
...IP No. 7
8. Smt. Manjula Rampal
Wife of Sh. Mahender Rampal
...IP No. 8
9. Sh. Mahender Rampal
Son of Sh. D.P. Rampal
R/o A3/35C, DDA Flats,
Green Apartments, Pashchim Vihar,
New Delhi
...IP No. 9
10. Sh. Ranjit Singh
Son of late Sh. Iqbal Singh
R/o WZ676A, Shiv Nagar Extension
Jail Road, New Delhi ...IP No. 10
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 2 of 19
11. Smt. Nirmala Prasad
Wife of Sh. M. Prasad
R/o A284, Vikas Puri
New Delhi ...IP No. 11
12A. Sh. Pawan Kumar
Son of Sh. Ram Dayal
12B. Sh. Desraj
Son of Sh. Ram Dayal
(since deceased)
Through Sh. Pawan Kumar
Both R/o A84, Vishal Enclave
New Delhi
...IP No. 12
13. Sh. Ashok Sibbal
Son of Sh. Pran Nath Sibbal
R/o 25/62, Punjabi Bagh
New Delhi
...IP No. 13
14A Sh. Ashok Kapoor
Son of I.D. Kapoor
14B Sh. J.D. Talwar
Son of Sh. D.R. Talwar
14C Sh. Kishan Kumar
Son of Sh. Anant Ram
All R/o Flat no. 80, Site IV Vikas Puri
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 3 of 19
New Delhi110018
...IP No. 14
15. Sh. Ramesh Chand
Sh. Suresh Prasad
Both sons of late Sh. Sultan Singh
...IP No. 15
16. Sh. Lokesh Kumar
Sh. Yogesh Kumar
Both sons of Sh. Mahesh Chand
...IP No. 16
17. Sh. Mahender Pal @ Chander Mohan
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
...IP No. 17
18. Sh. Somesh Paliwal
son of Sh. Ashok Kumar Paliwal
...IP No. 18
19. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Sh. Hirdesh Kumar
Sh. Bharat Bhushan
Sh. Vipin Kumar
Sh. Ravinder Kumar
Sh. Saket Kumar
...IP No. 19
All sons of Sh. Om Prakash
All R/o Village and Post office Najafgarh,
New Delhi
20. Sh. Attar Singh
Son of Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o H22, Tilak Nagar,
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 4 of 19
New Delhi. ...IP No. 20
Award No. : 5/0506
Village : Masoodabad
Filed on : 14.11.2005
Reserved on : 30.03.2011
Decided on : 31.03.2011
J U D G M E N T :
1. This is a reference under Section 3031 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Vide award no. 05/0506 a large chunk of land of village Masoodabad was acquired for MRTS project, Najafgarh Depot.
3. Subject matter of this reference is 19 Bigha 6 Biswa of land in village Masoodabad in khasra no. 409 min. (37), 410 min (214), 412 (416), 415 (416), 385 min ( 113), 386/1/1 min (20).
4. As per memorandum, formB and ENM the total compensation determined by the collector for the land in question is Rs. 65,65,216.66/.
5. As per collector, there were 3 categories of claimants for the compensation. They are Gaon Sabha, recorded owners who are IP no. 15 to 19 and IP no. 1 to 14 and 20.
6. The case of gaon sabha is on the basis that the land had vested in gaon sabha under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 5 of 19 The case of IP No. 1 to 14 and 20 is based on purchase of land in smaller parcels by way of sale deed, registered GPA, Will etc from recorded owners on various dates.
7. In the ENM, different parcels of land claimed by IP No. 1 to 14 and 20 are indicated.
8. Gaon Sabha is represented by Sh. Vikram Singh Girsa, advocate, IP no. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 20 are represented by Ms. Sukhda Dhamija, advocate and IP no. 2 and 11 are represented by Sh. B.D. Sharma, advocate and IP no. 7 is represented by Sh. Nishant, advocate. So far as the recorded owners who are IP no. 15 to 19 are concerned, they are not represented before this court.
9. On 20.04.2007, IP no. 15 to 19 were represented by Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate but at no stage any claim was filed on behalf of IP no. 15 to 19. Reason for nonfiling of claim is obvious from the record as IP no. 15 to 19 or their predecessors had executed registered sale documents in favour of IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 on various dates.
10. Therefore, the contest which appeared to be triangular was reduced to a contest between gaon sabha on one hand and IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 on other hand.
11. Gaon sabha and IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 filed their claims. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what effect? OPD LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 6 of 19
2. To what enhancement of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim, if so what amount? OPP
3. Relief.
12. However, on 29.08.2009 issues were recast because present reference is a reference under Section 3031 of L A Act. Now, issues are:
1. Which of the IPs is entitled to receive the amount of compensation?
2. Relief.
13. The claim of gaon sabha was short and simple. It was claimed that gaon sabha is the recorded owner and possession of land was taken from gaon sabha who is entitled to receive the entire compensation.
14. On the other hand, the claim of IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 was based on purchase of different parcels of land by them from different recorded owners on various dates.
15. Since recorded owners of the land were IP no. 15 to 19, a question arose how gaon sabha became the recorded owner as per revenue records?
16. Although the claim of gaon sabha is silent in this regard but copy of khatoni for land in khasra no. 409 filed on record by one of the IPs shows that land had vested in gaon sabha under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act vide orders of R.A in case no. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 7 of 19 28/NG/2000 dated 31.08.2000.
17. Considering the fact that the entire land of village Masoodabad was urbanized by way of notification under Section 507 of DMC Act on 23.05.1963, counsels for IPs submitted in their claim petitions that the vesting of land in gaon sabha Masoodabad is illegal, void and against the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
18. The said IPs relied upon Section 150 sub Section 3 of Delhi Land Reforms Act which reads as under: "If the whole of a gaon sabha area ceases to be included in rural areas as defined in Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, by virtue of a notification under Section 507 of that Act, the gaon sabha constituted for that area shall thereupon stand dissolved".
19. Reliance was placed on Rule 2 of appendix 7 of Delhi Land Reforms Rules which lays down the effect of the provisions of gaon sabha area in Municipalities which reads as under: "Effect of inclusion of gaon sabha area in municipality etc. If the whole of a gaon sabha area is included in a municipality, cantonment, notified area or town area, the gaon sabha shall cease and, its assets and liabilities shall be disposed of in accordance with the order of deputy commissioner. If a part of such area is so included, its jurisdiction shall be reduced by that part".
20. Gaon Sabha in support of its case filed on record Khasra girdawaries with effect from year 2001 to 2002 till 20082009. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 8 of 19 Khatoni of village Masoodabad for the year 20012002 was also filed on record.
21. Perusal of revenue records filed on record by gaon sabha reveals that (1) with regard to land in khasra no. 410, gaon sabha had no claim whatsoever (2) the entire land which is subject matter of this reference except land in khasra no. 410 had vested in gaon sabha in the year 2000 that is why with effect from 2001 the khasra girdawaries and khatoni are showing gaon sabha as the recorded owner.
22. A perusal of khasra girdawaries further show that in the class of land it is mentioned 'chardiwarikamre' meaning thereby the land was covered with boundary walls and had rooms built over that. It shows that though the land may have vested in gaon sabha but it was never in possession of the land in question.
23. Considering the fact that notification under Section 507 of DMC Act was issued in the year 1963 and award was passed in year of 20052006 and also taking note of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of 'Prem Versus Union of India' which is L.A appeal no. 323/07 dated 28.08.2008 notice was issued to Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs, New Delhi. On 14.01.2010 Superintendent from Ministry of Urban Affairs had appeared but matter rested there and no further steps were taken on behalf of Ministry of Urban Affairs.
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 9 of 19
24. Noticing the fact that land had vested in gaon sabha in the year of 2000, gaon sabha was directed vide orders dated 31.08.2010 to place on record orders of vesting of land in gaon sabha. Inspite of number of opportunities, no records were produced and finally written submission was received from SDM, Najafgarh that the record is not traceable due to nonavailability of case number and date of possession.
25. Counsels for IPs have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'Indu Khurana versus Union of India' in WP (C) 4143/2003 dated 26.03.2010.
26. In this case Hon'ble Single Judge had referred the matter to Division Bench as there were different views with regard to applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act after notification under Section 507 of DMC Act.
27. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that once rural area is urbanized by issuance of notification under Section 507 (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, provisions of Delhi Reforms Act will cease to apply.
28. Counsels for IPs also relied upon another judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of Delhi High Court in WP (C) 6789/2008 titled as 'Sardar Singh & Anr. Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr' dated 05.08.2010.
LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 10 of 19
29. In the case of Sardar Singh (supra) the question involved was whether revenue assistant had the powers to pass vesting of land in Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act after a particular land is urbanized in exercise powers under Section 507 (a) of DMCT Act, 1957? Relying upon the case of Indu Khurana ( supra) the orders passed by SDM / Revenue Assistant in exercise of power under Section 81 of the DLR Act vesting the land in gaon sabha was set aside.
30. The result of above discussion would be that gaon sabha will not be entitled to receive compensation for the land in question. The order of vesting passed by revenue assistant in the year 2000 under Section 81 of DLR Act is a nullity and void order because revenue assistant had not jurisdiction over the land in question as the area was urbanized and gaon sabha had ceased to exist and DLR Act was no more applicable to the land in question.
31. Furthermore, inspite of number of opportunities gaon sabha failed to produce record of vesting of land in its favour. Therefore, there was nothing on record to show that notice of proceedings under Section 81 was ever given to the bhumidar and whether conditional order to restore the land to agricultural purposes was ever communicated to the bhumidar.
32. Even as per khasra girdawaries, gaon sabha is not in possession as the type of land is shown as 'ChardiwariKamre'. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 11 of 19 Therefore , seeing from any angle gaon sabha has no claim to receive the compensation.
33. As per Section 150 (3) (d) of Delhi Land Reforms Act, the successor of gaon sabha is Central Government through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs. However, inspite of notice, said ministry did not take any steps to pursue this matter before this court.
34. Having concluded that gaon sabha has no right to claim the compensation in this reference petition, the next question is whether IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 are entitled to receive compensation as claimed by them.
35. IP No. 1: Sh. Himmat Singh. This IP has filed a joint claim along with several other IPs. Sum and substance of the claim of IPs who had purchased the land on various dates are already noticed above.
36. Sh. Rajiv Lochan who was the original recorded owner of the land in question had executed a registered sale deed on 17.01.1997 in favour of Sh. Anuj Kumar Jain with regard to 1 bigha 2 biswa out of khasra no. 415. The land was further sold by way of registered general power of attorney, registered will in favour of Sh. Bihari Lal Pokhar on 15.12.1998. The land was further changed hands and was purchased by Sh. Rajiv Arora on 04.05.1999 vide GPA, affidavit, agreement to sell and receipt. Sh. Rajiv Arora sold the land measuring 1100 sq. yards ( 1bigha2 biswa) to Sh. Himmat Singh, IP LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 12 of 19 No. 1 on 11.09.2003. As such IP No. 1 has shown that he is entitled to receive compensation for 1100 sq. yards of land.
37. IP No. 2: Shadi Lal Rawal. This IP has claimed compensation for land in khasra number 410 measuring (2 bigha8 biswa). As noted in the earlier parts of this order land in khasra number 410 had never vested in gaon sabha and as recorded owners who are IP no. 15 to 19 have not appeared before this court. The claim of IP No. 2 is liable to be allowed straightaway.
38. Moreover, IP no. 2 has filed certified copy of sale deed executed by Sh. Rajiv Lochan on 17.01.1997 in his favour for land in khasra no. 410 (28).
39. As a result IP no. 2 has also succeeded in establishing that IP no. 2 is entitled to receive compensation for land in khasra no. 410 measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa.
40. IP No. 3, 4 and 5: Pratap Singh, Satish Gupta and Himmat Singh. The claim of these three IPs is for 1089 sq. yards of land in khasra number 409. These IPs have filed on record mutual settlement deed dated 03.08.2007 where they have agreed that Sh. Pratap Singh will take 40% of the compensation, Sh. Himmat Singh will also take 40% of compensation and Sh. Satish Gupta has agreed to take 20% of compensation out of land measuring 1089 sq. yards in khasra no. 409.
41. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed executed by Sh. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 13 of 19 Sandeep Parwal in favour of Smt. Honey Parwal dated 27.12.1996 as per which 1 bigha and 4 biswa of land was sold to the vendee.
42. The said vendee Smt. Honey Parwal executed registered power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit all dated 04.05.1999 in favour of Sh. Rajender Kumar.
43. Sh. Rajender Kumar further executed registered GPA, registered will, affidavit, receipt, agreement for sale in favour of Smt. Nirmala Prasad who finally sold the land to IP no. 3, 4 and 5 vide registered GPA, possession letter, agreement to sell and purchase, affidavit and receipt all dated 24.01.2000.
44. Therefore, IP No. 4, 5, 6 and also entitled to 40%, 20% and 40% of compensation of land measuring 1089 sq. yards.
45. IP No. 6: Sh. Rakesh Kumar. This IP has claimed compensation for land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa in khasra no. 412. The transfer of property begun when Sh. Rajiv Lochan recorded owner of land sold the land in favour of Sh. Surjit Singh by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1997. Sh. Surjit Singh transferred the land in favour of Sh. Arun Kumar who further sold the land to IP no. 6 Sh. Rakesh Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 27.05.1990. Land was mutated in favour of this IP after execution of sale deed in his favour.
46. Resultantly, this IP has also succeeded that he is entitled to receive compensation for land in khasra no. 412 measuring 1 bigha LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 14 of 19 2 biswa.
47. IP No. 7: Manju Tanwar. This IP has claimed compensation of 1100 sq. yards of land in khasra no. 415. Reliance is placed on registered sale deed dated 22.06.1999 executed by Sh. Bihari Lal in favour of IP no. 7 with regard to land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa in khasra no. 415. Sh. Bihari Lal had purchased this land vide registered GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, registered will executed by Sat Narain Jindal all dated 14.12.1998. Sh. Sat Narain Jindal had purchased this land vide registered sale deed from the original recorded owner Sh. Rajiv Lochan on 17.01.1997. Resultantly, IP no. 7 has also established that she is entitled to receive compensation for 1100 sq. yards of land in khasra no. 415.
48. IP No. 8 and 9: Manjula Rampal and Mahender Rampal. Both these IPs have claimed compensation totaling 1089 sq. yards in khasra no. 408 and 409. However, as khasra no. 408 is not subject matter of present reference, ld counsel for IP no. 8 and 9 stated that she would restrict her claim on behalf of IP no. 8 and 9 to 835 sq. yards as 250 sq. yards of land in khasra no. 408 is not the subject matter in this case.
49. These IPs have relied upon sale deed dated 27.12.1996 executed by Sh. Sandeep Parwal in favour of Sh. Sanjay Parwal. Thereafter the land was transferred in the name of Ram Kishan who finally sold the same to IP no. 8 and 9 vide GPA etc. LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 15 of 19
50. Therefore IP No. 8 and 9 have shown their entitlement to land measuring 835 sq. yards in khasra no. 409.
51. IP No. 10: Sh. Ranjit Singh. This IP is claiming compensation for land in khasra no. 409 measuring 429 sq. yards. Reliance is placed on registered general power of attorney executed by Sh. Prem Kumar in favour of IP No. 10. Reliance is also placed on registered will, receipt and agreement to sell all dated 10.01.2000.
52. Therefore, IP no. 10 is also entitled to receive compensation for 429 sq. yards of land in khasra no. 409.
53. IP No. 11: Nirmala Prasad. This IP is claiming compensation for land measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa in khasra no. 412. For claiming the compensation, reliance is placed on registered sale deed dated 08.03.1999 executed by Sh. Bihari Lal in favour of IP No. 11 for land measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa in khasra no. 412. Sh. Bihari Lal had purchased the land in question vide another registered sale deed executed by original recorded owner on 26.11.1997. Khatoni showing title in favour of Sh. Bihari Lal is also on record. As such Smt. Nirmala Prasad has also become entitled for compensation for land measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa in khasra no. 412.
54. IP No. 12 (i) and (ii): Sh. Desraj and Sh. Pawan Kumar. The claim of these IPs is for land in khasra no. 415 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa.
55. The basis of their claim is registered sale deed executed LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 16 of 19 by Sh. Bihari Lal on 29.04.1999 with regard to 1 bigha and 2 biswa of land in khasra no. 415. Sh. Desraj died during the pendency of this reference and LRs of Desraj relinquished their share in favour of Sh. Pawan Kumar vide orders dated 08.04.2010.
56. Resultantly, Sh. Pawan Kumar IP no. 12 (i) is entitled to receive entire compensation for land in khasra no. 415 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa for himself as well as for late Sh. Deshraj IP No. 12 (ii).
57. IP No. 13: Sh. Ashok Sibbal. This IP is claiming compensation for land in khasra no. 412 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa.
58. The basis of this claim is registered sale deed dated 12.11.1997 executed by Sh. Satbir Singh in favour of IP No. 13.
59. Resultantly, IP no. 13 is entitled to receive compensation for land in khasra no. 412 measuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa.
60. IP No. 14 (a) (b) (c): Sh. Ashok Kapoor, Sh. Kishan Kumar and Sh. J.D. Talwar. These IPs are claiming compensation in land measuring 660 sq. yards of khasra no. 409 by virtue of registered GPA, registered Will, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt executed by Sh. Prem Kumar in favour of these IPs.
61. Resultantly, these IPs are entitled to receive the compensation for land in khasra no. 409 measuring 660 sq. yards.
62. IP No. 20: Sh. Attar Singh. This IP is claiming compensation for land in khasra no. 415 measuring 1050 sq. yards. The basis of claim is registered sale deed executed by Sh. Satbir Singh LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 17 of 19 in favour of Sh. Ramesh Kumar who executed registered general power of attorney, registered will, affidavit, agreement to sell, receipt all dated 05.05.1999 in favour of Sh. Rajiv Arora. Sh. Rajiv Arora on 16.08.1999 vide registered GPA, registered will, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt transferred this land in favour of one Sh. Satish Gupta. Finally Sh. Satish Gupta vide registered GPA, registered will, agreement to sell, receipt, possession letter, SPA and indemnity bond transferred this land in favour of Sh. Attar Singh IP no. 20.
63. Resultantly, IP no. 20 is held entitled to receive compensation for land measuring 1050 sq. yards in khasra no. 415.
64. A sum total of compensation prayed by IP no. 1 to 14 and 20 shows that the claim for compensation is less and more compensation is deposited for such land in different parcels for which there is no claimant. In these circumstances, the excess compensation is liable to be returned back to LAC as unclaimed compensation. District nazir will do the needful.
65. The learned predecessor of this court vide its orders dated 27.07.2006 had noticed that 80% of the compensation is lying deposited in this reference and 20% of compensation is lying deposited in another reference under Section 3031 of L A Act which is LAC No. 42/09/06. It was ordered that evidence would be recorded in this reference petition and on the basis of evidence brought on record here, the second reference being LAC No. 42/09/06 would also LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 18 of 19 be decided.
66. Therefore let a copy of this judgment be placed on the file of LAC No. 42/09/06 which is also listed before this court today.
67. Reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of judgment be sent to LAC SouthWest. Successful IPs shall be at liberty to file requisite documents for release of compensation in their favour after lapse of period of appeal. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on the day of 31st March, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No. 44/09/05 Page 19 of 19