Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Laxmi W/O Sh. Partap Singh on 25 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.2A/14
New LAC No. 27/16
CNR No. DLWTO10004112014
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (ADM),
D.C. Office, Rampura,
Distt. West, Delhi35.
( Nonapplicant)
Versus
1. Smt. Laxmi W/o Sh. Partap Singh
R/o 74/47, Ward No. 30, Gali No. 2,
Malviya Nagar, Mahlana Road,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana ( I.P. No. 1).
2. Smt. Chand Rani W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
R/o A/1, Raja Park, Rani Bagh,
Delhi110034 ( I.P. No. 2)
3. Smt. Shyani W/o Sh. Balwan Singh
R/o 57/9, Panna Mitha, VPO Sampla,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana ( I.P. No. 3)
4. Smt. Pyari W/o Sh. Dara Singh Dalal ( I.P. No. 4)
5. Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Dhara Singh ( I.P. No. 5)
Award No. : 02/DC(W)/199900
Village : Mundka
Date of Award : 25.02.1997
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 1/16
Date of institution of the case : 21.05.2014
Date of reserving of judgment : 19.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.02.2022
(Reference under Section 3031of Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
JUDGMENT
1. The Land Acquisition Collector (West) made reference under Section 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in respect of Award no. 02/DC(W)/19992000 qua land measuring 3 Bigha 14 Biswa in Khasra No. 26//22/1 shown at Sl. No. 5 in the Naksha Muntzamin along with compensation of Rs.1,38,330/ acquired for the purpose of construction of MRTS . The interested persons in the reference are mentioned herein above.
2. In original memorandum, name of only four IPs were mentioned. But the name of IP No. 5 as Raj Kumar has been mentioned in revised memorandum.
3. Notice of the reference was sent to all the Interested Persons.
4. As per order dated 21.05.2014, the cheque No. 550612 dated 19.05.2014 of Rs.1,38,330/ was directed to be deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal year to year basis.
5. It is mentioned in the claim of IP No. 1 that at the time of notification under section 4 of LA Act, the total land mentioned above LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 2/16 was recorded in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Ramaan having half share and Sh. Partap Singh S/o Sh. Ramaan having half share. They received compensation to the extent of their half share before the LAC but both could not file the reference petition under section 18 of L.A. Act. They expired on 19.10.2002 and 15.10.2000 respectively. The present claimant /IP No. 1 is the wife of late Sh. Partap Singh, who was the recorded bhumidhar of land in question to the extent of ½ share and she filed reference under section 28A of L.A Act. She disclosed the fact before the LAC, West regarding the death of her motherinlaw Smt. Shanti Devi but LAC passed award only in her favour to the extent of ½ share of the land.
It is further claimed that as per statment of memorandum, the total amount of 1/2 share has been shown as Rs.1,38,330/ in which she is entitled to full share as no other person has any right, title or interest in the reference.
6. IP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed joint claim that they are biological siblings being daughters of late Sh. Ramanand @ Raman (died in 1977) and late Smt. Shanti Devi (died on 19.10.2002). They had a brother also namely, Pratap Singh who died on 15.01.2000. IP No. 1 is the first wife of Sh. Pratap Singh and his second wife is Krishna Devi who is younger sister of IP No. 1.
Their father was bhumidar of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 26/22/1 (314), 44/9 (45), 56/3 (04), 432/1/12 (02), 432/2/2 (08) and 475/3 (05) totalling to 818. After his death in 197677, an oral partition between his son late Sh. Pratap Singh and widow late LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 3/16 Smt. Shandi Devi took place pursuant to which the land was mutated in their names to the extent of half shares each. Smt. Shanti Devi started residing in house no. 613, Khasra No. 229, measuring 5 biswas in the phirni ( extended lal dora) situated in abadi of village Mundaka, which was purchased by her husband in 1963 from one Sh. Balle Ram S/o Mohra of village Mundka. A suit for declaration, permanent injunction titled as "Chand Rani & Anr. Vs Laxmi Devi"
bearing no. 62/8/08 was filed in the court of ld. ADJ, Sh. D.K. Malhotra. After her husband's death, she was in possession of that property.
Sh. Pratap Singh was given ancestral house in a mutual oral settlement, which was later sold and he shifted to Sonepat where he built up his own house and lived with his two wives. Hence, Smt. Shanti Devi left behind only following legal heirs:
a) Smt Chand Rani (daughter) claimant/objector/IP No. 2
b) Smt. Shyani (daughter) claimant/objector/IP No. 3.
c) Smt Pyari (daughter) claimant/objector/IP No. 4.
IP No. 1 had filed an application dated 04.07.2000 before Tehsildar for getting her name mutated in place of her husband, vide mutation case no. M/28/Tehsildar/PB/200001 and the same was allowed on 25.07.2000. In 2003, she moved another application before Tehsildar (Punjabi Bagh) with malafide intention, for getting her name mutated falsely, in place of late Smt. Shanti Devi, misrepresenting that she was the sole legal heir of her motherinlaw. The application was allowed on 17.04.2003, despite the fact that Smt. LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 4/16 Shanti Devi had three surviving daughters i.e. IP Nos 2 to 4 and the fact that she had already got her share partitioned with her son. Aggrieved by that order, the IP nos 2 & 3 filed appeal no. 136/Delhi before the Hon'ble Court of Deputy Commissioner/Addl. Collector (West) which is still pending. In that appeal, IP No. 2 filed an application dated 25.05.2015 for registration of a criminal case against IP No.1 under section 420/467/471/34 120B IPC which is yet to be taken up.
It is stated that IP No. 1 has no right, title or interest in the reference as only they are entitled to receive full compensation.
7. IP No. 1 filed reply to the claim of IP nos. 2 to 4 and denied that she has no right, title or interest in the compensation and she took protection of section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
8. IP no. 5 also filed claim that he was maternal grandson of late Smt. Shanti Devi who died on 19.10.2002, and she had executed a will dated 19.02.1998 in his favour, registered as document no. 9781, in Book No. 3, Vol. No. 4185, on pages 41 to 43 in the office of Sub RegistrarII, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in respect of her share in Khasra No. 26/12/1 (314), situated in the revenue estate of Mundka. By virtue of aforesaid will, he became the sole and absolute owner of the property.
But IP No. 1, on the basis of forged and fabricated death certificate of Smt. Shanti Devi, managed to get mutated the aforesaid holding in her name vide order dated 17.04.2003 to the extent of half LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 5/16 share of Smt. Shanti Devi. Upon having learnt that she had got mutation in her name on the basis that Smt Shanti Devi died intestate, an appeal bearing no. 1/DC/West/2015 was filed which is subjudice before ld. ADM, West, Rampura, Delhi.
On the strength of order dated 17.04.2003, the IP No. 1 claimed compensation qua the share of Smt. Shanti Devi and she filed a claim under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act before Ld. ADM who was pleased to refer the dispute to this court on 19.05.20214. She was successful in getting the case referred by claiming that only she was entitled to the full share and no other person had any right, title or interest in the acquired property. So, he moved an application dated 17.05.2016 before the ADM under section 30 of the Act in which detail of the default committed by IP No.1 was mentioned. He had prayed that compensation of the acquired property be given to him and the same had devolved upon him due to registered will in his favour by his maternal grand mother. He moved another application under section 3031 of the Act on 09.01.2017 before LAC praying that he be allowed to receive the inherited compensation to the extent of ½ share of her maternal grand mother Shanti Devi. Another application dated 06.02.2017 was moved for that purpose. Vide yet another application dated 20.02.2017, he requested the ADM/LAC, West to implead him in the reference. Thereafter, he filed written arguments on 06.03.2017 in which he had reminded the LAC about his earlier applications and prayed that his name be added in the memorandum of reference. Taking into account his applications, request and representation, the ADM was pleased to send revised LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 6/16 memorandum under section 3031 of the Act in which his name was mentioned as objector/person interested.
9. Reply of IP No. 1 to the cliam of IP No. 5 is that his case was not maintable he was claiming right in the acquired land on the basis of the will, which was inpermissible as per section 48 of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954. It is further mentioned that the claim of IP No. 5 is not maintainable due to another reason also and that reason is that he is claiming the share of Smt. Shanti Devi on the basis of the will but the present reference is related only to the share of Partap Singh and not to the share of Shanti Devi. It is further mentioned that IP No. 1 has got only the share of her husband Partap Singh and the share of her motherinlaw Smt. Shanti Devi was not decided by the LAC.
Whether the reference pertain to the half share of Partap Singh or half share of his mother Shanti Devi in acquired land measuring 3 bigha 14 biswas in Kh. No. 26/22/1.
10. Following issues were framed on 19.02.2016:
1. Which of the IP is entitled to compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and to what an extent? OPP
2. Relief.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 7/16
11. IP No. 1 Smt. Laxmi got herself examined as IP1W1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex. IP1W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex. IP1W1/1(OSR) :is the copy of death certificate of Smt. Shanti Devi, her motherinlaw.
2. Ex. IP1W1/2(OSR): is the copy of death ceriticate of Sh.
Pratap Singh, her husband.
3. Ex. C1 ( OSR) : is the copy of her Voter Identity card.
4. Mark A : is the copy of petition under section 28A of L.A. Act.
5. Mark B : is the copy of order dated 12.07.2012 passed by LAC (WEST) under section 28A L.A. Act.
6. Mark C : is the copy of award No. 2/19992000.
12. IP Nos 2, 3 & 4 did not had any evidence. But IP No.5 examined 5 witnesses.
He tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP5W1/A and relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 : is the Fard Khatoni/nakal register Karwayi dated 03.10.1994.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 : is the death ceriticate of Sh. Pratap Singh.
3. Ex. IP5W1/3 (OSR) : is the death ceriticate of Smt. Shanti Devi.
4. Ex. IP5W1/4 : is the certified copy of mutation proeedings vide misal no.N178.
5. Ex. IP5W1/5 : is the copy of proceedings before LAC.
6. Mark A : is the copy of will dated 19.02.1998.
Jogendra @ Jugnu IP5W2 and Sukhbir Singh IP5W3 are attesting witnesses to the will.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 8/16 Sh. Narender Kumar, kanoongo, brought the mutation case files bearing Misal No. M28/Teh/P.B./200001 titled is Smt Lakshmi Vs Pratap Singh and M178/Teh/P/B./200203 titled as Smt. Lakshmi Devi Vs Shanti, as Ex. IP5W4/A (Colly) and Ex. IP5W4/B respectively. These pertain to the proceedings vide which shares of Partap Singh and Shanti Devi in remaining i.e. unacquired land, were mutated in the name of IP No. 1.
Sh. Vivek Yadav, Junior Assistant from the office of Sub RegistrarII, Basai Darapur, Delhi brought the record of Will registered as document no. 9781 in additional book No. 3, Vol. No. 4183 on pages 41 to 43 dated 19.02.1998 as Ex. IP5W5/1
13. The case of IP No. 5 is that IP No. 1 had claimed compensation under section 28 A of L.A. Act in respect of the whole land measuring 3 bigha and 14 biswas and hence, the reference is qua the whole land. But case of the IP No. 1 is that the reference is only qua the share of her husband.
It is undisputed that Partap Singh and her mother Shanti Devi were recorded Bhumidars in the share of half each in the subject property. Partap Singh died on 15.01.2000 and Shanti Devi expired on 19.10.2002. Due to their death, the IP No. 1 had got mutated their remaining land in her name in 2000 and 2003 respecstively. She had filed petition Mark A dated 26.10.2005 under sectoin 28A, in which it is mentioned that her husband Partap Singh and her motherinlaw Shanti Devi had received compensation in respect of the acquired land and after their death, she was entitled to receive compensation as LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 9/16 enhanced by the court. The petition was disposed off vide order dated 12.07.2012 Mark B, by the LAC, West.
Initially the reference was received on 19.05.2014 in which name of four IPs were mentioned. It was accompanied by enhanced Naksha Muntjamin Ex. IPW5/X1 in which only the IP No. 1 has been described at Sl. No. 5. The revised memorandum dated 11.07.2017 was received subsequently in which it is mentioned that the name of Raj Kumar may also be considered as Interested person. At Sl. No. 5 of enhanced Naksha Muntajamin, the words "Laxmi w/o Partap Singh1/2" are mentioned in the coloumn of name and share. The digit '1/2' show that said reference is not regarding the whole acquired land of 3 bigha 14 biswas. Had it been for the whole land, the digit of '1/2' would have not been there. That digit suggests that it is regarding only the 1/2 share. It is not clearly specified whether the said 1/2 share is of Partap Singh or his mother Shanti Devi. But discription of IP No. 1 as wife of Partap Singh and not as wife of Partap Singh son of Shanti Devi, suggests that the enhanced Naksha Muntajamin is qua the half share of Partap singh. To the same effect is the case of IP No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that IP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have not led any evidence and their case in the claim is that they were entitled to the share of their mother Shanti Devi. They did not claim in the share of their brother Partap Singh. Nonleading of evidence by IP nos. 2, 3 & 4 also suggests that the reference is only in regard to share of Partap Singh in the acquired land.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 10/16
14. In view of above discussion, it is held that the reference is in regard to the share of Partap Singh in the acquired land and not qua the half share of his mother Shanti Devi and also not qua the whole acquired land of 3 bigha 14 biswas.
Issuewise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1. Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and to what an extent? OPP
15. Ld. counsel for IP No. 2, 3 & 4 argued that notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.02.1997, the possession was taken on 02.07.1998 and award was passed on 08.04.1999. After acquisition, the property had vested in the government and hence, the right, interest in the acquired property should devolve as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Mr. Partap Singh died on 15.01.2000 and on that day, he was survived by two classI legal heirs namely IP No. 1 and his mother Shanti Devi. So, they became owner of half shares each of the share of Partap Singh. When Shanti Devi expired on 19.10.2002, IP No. 2, 3 & 4 inherited her share in view of section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So, IP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each of the share inherited by their mother from Partap Singh.
The counsel for IP No. 5 argued that Smt. Shanti Devi is maternal grand mohter of his client and she had executed a registered will quat the acquired property in his favour and hence, after her death, IP No. 5 has become owner thereof and property should vest in his favour as per Indian Succession Act, 1925.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 11/16 On the other hand, ld. Counsel for IP No. 1 argued that the case is governed by Section 50 of The Delhi Reforms Act which provides that when male Bhumidar dies his interest in his holding shall devolve upon his male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent. When that category fails, the holding develoves upon his widow only. In the case in hand, IP No. 1 did not have any child lineal descent that by her husband Pratap Singh. So, the entry No. 1 of section 50 failed and thereafter, the property should vest to the widow of Pratap Singh who is IP No. 1.
16. It is crystal clearly mentioned in section 1(2)(c) of The Delhi Reform Act 1954 that it shall not apply to the areas acauired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In the case in hand, notificatin for acquisition under section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.02.1997, possession was taken on 02.07.1998 and award was passed on 08.04.1999. Mr. Pratap Singh expired on 15.01.2000. So, before the death of Pratap Singh, the land had already been acquited and it had vested in the government. Hence, in view of section 1 (2)(c) of the Act, it is held that the succession to the property of Pratap Singh shall be governed by Hindu Succession Act 1956 and not by Delhi Reforms Act, 1954. In a similar case titled as Jai Prakash @ Anr. Vs Smt. Pushpa & Anr. 81(1999) DLT 519 following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court :
10.As provided for under section 1(2)(c) the provision of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would not apply to the areas acquired under the Land Acquisiton Act. Provision of Section 50 would be LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 12/16 applicable so long the land continues to be governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and also so long the concerned person continues to be a Bhumidar in such land. With the acquistion of the land the same vested on the goverment and, therefore, the right of the Bhumidar, if any, in the land could not be said to be susbsisting after the land was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
11.In the case in hand not only the land vested in the government but Award was also passed by the Collector in respect of the land and the compensation was fixed and, therefore, by no stratch of imagination it can be said that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners continued to hold bhumidari right over the aforesaid land. The object and purpose of enacting the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforems Act by giving preference to males in succession of Bhumidar rights appears to be to ensure that land goes to actual tiller and there is avoidance of unnecessary fragmentation. After the acquisiton of the land by the govenment the said object and purpose is lost and, therefore, the Provision of the Delhi Land Reforms Act could not be made applicable in respect of acquired land.
Consequently, the provision of the general Law of Succession as Provided for under the Hindu Succession Act should apply in the matter of succession and also in the matter of entitlement to compnesation payable for the acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act. "
17. In view of section 1(2)(c) of Delhi Reforms Act and above citation, it is held that the property of Pratap Singh shall devolve as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 13/16
18. IP No. 5 is heavily relying upon the registered will executed by her Nani in his favour. Following contents of Page No. 2 of the will are highly relevant: And Whereas I have the following properties:
(a) Land situated in Khata no. 458, Khasra no.
26/22/1(314), 44/9, (405) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi41, in which I have ½ share and the ½ share is in the name of my son Partap Singh.
(b)......................................................................... I hereby bequeath and devise to my grandson Raj Kumar Dalal all my property(s) as afore mentioned for his use and benefit, absolutely and for ever and I hereby appoint him the said Raj Kumar Dalal as sole executor of this will, which is my last and final will."
19. It is pertinent to mention that Smt. Shanti Devi was Bhumidar of ½ share in 03 bigha 14 biswa in Khasra No. 26/22/1, the other half share was owned by her son Pratap Singh. Perusal of above contents of the will shows that Smt. Shanti Devi had made will in favour of IP no. 5 only regarding her half share and not in regard to half share of her son Pratap Singh. Moreover, Pratap Singh died in 2000 and the will is said to have been executed in 1998. So, on the day of execution of the will, the share of Pratap Singh was not open for devolution. Hence, it is held that the said will is regarding the share of Shanti Devi in the acquired property but the present reference is only in regard to the share of Pratap Singh and hence, IP No. 5 is not entitled to any share compensation on the basis of this will.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 14/16
20. It has already been held that the property of Pratap Singh shall devolve as per Hindu Succession Act 1956.
He expired on 15.01.2000 and on that day, he had two legal heirs of class I category. The first was his wife Laxmi and second was his mother Shanti Devi who expired on 19.10.2002. So, after the death of Pratap Singh, his share in the acquired land was inherited in equal shares by Laxmi Devi and Shanti Devi. Shanti Devi expired on 19.10.2002. On that day, she had only three heirs namely IP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 who are finding place in entry no.(a) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of their mother, they came into her shoes and inherited her share jointly i.e. to the tune of 1/3rd each, meaning thereby that they are entitled to the compensation to tune of 1/6th each. As observed earlier, Bhumidar i.e. I P No. 1 is entitled ½ of compensation of her husband Pratap Singh.
ISSUE NO. 2 (RELIEF)
21. Consequent to decision on issue no. 1 and for the sake of clarity, following is reiterated: I. IP No. 1 is entitled to 50% compensation of the total amount payable to her husband for his ½ share in 3 bigha 14 biswa.
II. IP No. 2, 3 & 4 ( collectively) are entitled to 50% of the compensation payable to Pratap Singh for his ½ share in 3 bigha 14 biswas. They are entitled equally.
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 15/16
22. No orders as to costs.
23. The reference petition stands answered accordingly.
24. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) as well as DMRC for information as well as for making arrangement to remit the decretal amount in the court.
25. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed UMED by UMED
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2022.02.25
16:19:47 +0530
Announced in the open court
Today, the 25th February, 2022
(Umed Singh Grewal)
Addl, District Judge02
West District, Delhi
LAC No. 27/16 UOI Vs Smt. Laxmi & Ors. 16/16