Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Union Of India vs , on 1 April, 2019

                   In The Court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad,
                   Additional District Judge­01, (East),
                        Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
          LAC (New) No.36/16
          Old No.24/88
          In the matter of :­

          Union of India.
                                        Versus,

     1. Sh. Devi Ram, (deceased),
        Through his LRs :­

          i). Sh. Omvir Sharma, (now deceased),
          Through his LRs :
          a) Smt. Rameshwari Devi, (wife),
          b) Sh. Manish Sharma, (son),
          c) Sh. Pankaj Sharma, (son),
          d) Ms. Pooja Sharma, (daughter),
          e) Ms. Varsha Sharma, (daughter),
          All residents of :­
          245/1A, School Block, Mandawali
          Fazalpur, Delhi.
          f) Smt. Anju, (daughter),
          W/o Sh. Mohit Dixit,
          R/o House No.N­115, East Jawahar
          Nagar, Loni Road, District Ghaziabad, (U.P.).

          ii). Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma­Son,
          iii). Smt. Rajwati­Daughter.
          iv). Smt. Maya­Daughter.
          v). Smt. Sunita­Daughter.
          vi). Smt. Jagriti­Daughter.
          vii). Smt. Seemo­Daughter.
          viii). Smt. Babita­Daughter.

     2. Sh. Daya Ram, (deceased),
        Through his LRs :­


LAC No.36/16
Old No.24/88
Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.
DOD : 01.04.2019                                           Page No.1 of 16
           i). Smt. Prakashi Devi­wife.
          ii). Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma­son.
          iii). Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma­son.
          iv). Sh. Prem Chand Sharma­son.
          v). Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma­son.

          vi). Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma­son,
          (since deceased), through his LRs :­
          a). Smt. Laxmi Devi­wife.
          b) Master Aditya Sharma­son.
          c) Master Nitin Sharma­son.
          (Minors through their mother and
          Natural Guardian, Smt. Laxmi Devi).

          vii). Smt. Archana Sharma­Daughter.

     3. Sh. Kale, (deceased), through his LRs,
        i.e., IPs No.4 and 5).

     4. Sh. Shanti Swroop, S/o Sh. Kale,
        (Since deceased), through his LRs :­

          a) Smt. Bimla Devi­wife.
          b) Sh. Rishi Sharma­Son.
          c) Sh. Sunil Sharma­Son.
          d) Sh. Shiv Shanker Sharma­Son.

     5. Sh. Sish Ram, S/o Sh. Kale,
        (Since Deceased), through his LRs :­

          a) Smt. Kailasho Devi­wife.
          b) Sh. Brahm Prakash­Son.

     6. Sh. Brahm Dutt, S/o Late Sh. Champat,
        R/o Village Ghazipur, Delhi.
                                            .....Interested Persons
        Date of Institution     :     24.05.1988
        Reserving for order     :     30.03.2019
        Date of Judgment        :     01.04.2019
LAC No.36/16
Old No.24/88
Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.
DOD : 01.04.2019                                         Page No.2 of 16
                 Reference, U/s 30­31 of Land Acquisition Act

Present :           Sh. A.C.Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for Union of India.
                    Sh. R.K.Shukla, Ld. Counsel for LRs of IPs No.1&2.
                    IP No.6, Sh. Braham Dutt, in person.

                                        JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present reference, appears that LAC had referred the present reference U/s 30­31 of Land Acquisition Act to this Court for adjudication on 24.05.1988.

2. Notices of the reference, U/s 30­31 of LA Act, were issued to the IPs and after service, IPs No.1,2,4,5&6 had filed their claims.

3. IP No.1, Sh. Devi Ram and IP No.2, Sh. Daya Ram, have jointly filed their claim, stating therein that LAC has sent compensation amount of Rs.39,746.68p to this court, with respect to land, forming part of Khasra No.1221/201(1­15) and 1234/201(3­18), covered vide item No.484 and the land of Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas 18 biswas, was in cultivatory possession of IPs No.1&2, for last more than 15 years before its acquisition, to the extent of 1/2 share and admittedly, recorded Bhumidhar of the said land never ejected IPs No.1&2, U/s 84 of the DLR Act within the period of limitation and consequently, IPs No.1&2 had retained the possession of the said land without any interruption and break, for a period of more than three years, and that too, without any payment of rent/Batai, in lieu of cultivatory possession of the said land, thus, acquiring, therein, Bhumidhari rights U/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954. One half LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

of the aforesaid land was originally cultivated by Sh. Lal Singh, i.e., the father of IPs No.1&2 and remaining one half was cultivated by their uncle, Sh. Kale and after demise of their father, the said land came in their possession, to the extent of one half share, and consequently, IPs No.1&2 because of having acquired Bhumidhari rights in the said land, forming part of Khasra No.1234/201(3­18), to the extent of one half share, U/s 85 of the DLR Act, are entitled to claim compensation amount to the exclusion of its recorded Bhumidhar, Sh. Braham Dutt, S/o Sh. Champat.

4. IP No.4, Sh. Shanti Swaroop, and LRs of IP No.5, Sh. Sish Ram, have averred in their joint claim that late Sh. Kale was in cultivatory possession of the land, bearing No.1221/201(1­15) and 1234/201(3­16), without consent of the recorded Bhumidhar. In 1960­61, the recorded Bhumidhar, Sh. Champat had filed ejectment proceedings, U/s 84 of DLR Act, against Sh. Kale, in respect of land of Khasra No.1234/201(3­18), before the court of Sh. Narsing Kishore, Revenue Assistant, Delhi, but same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order, dated .....1961, thereafter, neither Sh. Champat, nor his legal representatives had filed any eviction proceedings, hence, late Sh. Kale was entitled to be declared as Bhumidhar of the said land, also to receive exclusive and entire compensation of the above land. Late Sh. Kale was in actual physical cultivatory possession of the above land, when, possession thereof was taken by the LAC. It is further averred, that Sh. Lal Singh got his name recorded in the remarks column LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

with respect to Khasra No.1234/201 surreptitiously, by his son Devi Ram in collusion with the Patwari and on representation, moved by Sh. Kale, the name of Sh. Lal Singh was deleted from the records. Sh. Lal Singh died in 1978­1979 and Sh. Kale was in cultivatory possession of the land, when its possession was taken by the LAC, vide Award No.49­C/70­71, hence, claimants are exclusively, entitled to receive compensation.

5. IP No.6, Sh. Brahm Dutt, has averred in his claim that a sum of Rs.39,746.68p, as disputed compensation, with respect to Khasra No.1221/201(1­15), 1234/201 min (3­18) of Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, has been forwarded by the LAC for apportionment. The claimant was Bhumidhar of the above Khasra Numbers and was in possession of the land, till the time of acquisition. The claimant was in possession of the above Khasra Numbers, before commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act and he remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land, till its acquisition. None of the other IPs were ever remained in possession of any of Khasra numbers, in any capacity, whatsoever. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get entire compensation and prayed accordingly.

6. Vide order dated 26.07.1989, following issues were framed :­ (1) Which of the party is entitled to compensation and to what apportion ?

(2) Relief.

7. To prove their claims, IPs No.1&2 has examined in evidence, Sh. Devi Ram, i.e., IP No.1. He has been cross­examined by ld.

Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

counsel for IP Dharamdutt, also by IP No.4 and LRs of IP No.5. Sh. Sri Chand and Sh. Chiranji, have also been examined on behalf of IPs No.1&2.

8. To prove his claim, IP No.6, Sh. Braham Dutt, has examined himself, as IP6W1, vide his affidavit, Ex.IP6/A. He has relied upon certain Khasra Girdawaries, i.e., Ex.P2, (colly), also certified copies of Khasra Girdawari, for the year 1979­80, as Ex.IP6W1/A. He has been cross­examined at length by the ld. counsel for LRs of IPs No.1&2.

9. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record and from the perusal of record, it appears that IPs No.1,2,4,5&6, have filed their claim petitions, under the present reference petition and my issue wise findings are as under :­ Findings on Issue No.1

10. This is an issue to the effect that "which of the party is entitled to compensation and to what apportion" and onus to prove this issue was upon the interested parties, to the present reference and from the perusal of the record, it appears that IPs No.1&2, who are joint claimants No.65, in the award under question, are claiming compensation amount, of half portion, with respect to the land, forming part of Khasra No.1234/201(3­

18), on account of acquisition of Bhumidhari rights, as they were in cultivatory possession of the land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas. IP No.1, Sh. Devi Ram has deposed in his examination­ in­chief that at the time of acquisition, the land in question, bearing Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

was in cultivatory possession of IPs No.1&2 and Sh. Kale and before acquisition, in the year 1982, the aforesaid parties were in continuous cultivatory possession of the said land for the last 15 years and the cultivatory possession was in their own rights and no payment of rent or Batai was paid to Sh. Champat or his son Sh. Dharam Dutt, in lieu of cultivation of the said land. Thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over by the government from them. He has relied upon copies of Khasra Girsawari, i.e., Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­5. No suit for possession was ever filed by Sh. Champat or his son Sh. Dharam Dutt for seeking their ejectment from the land in question. They are entitled to the Bhumidhari rights, in respect of the land in question, and as such, they are entitled for compensation. Half portion of the above land was cultivated by Sh. Kale and remaining half was cultivated by them. During cross­ examination, by IP Sh. Dharamdutt, he has stated that first of all, he came in possession of the land in the year 1973. At the time of taking the possession, no dispute arose between themselves and Sh. Braham Dutt. There was no quarrel, no police report and no criminal case, between them and Sh. Braham Dutt. He does not know, if any, P­5, was filled in, by the Patwari. The Girdhawar used to visit the spot for verification. No checking of P­5 was done, on the spot, by the Girdhawar. Possession of the land in dispute was taken by the government in starting of the year 1982. He did not file any suit under Section 85 of the DLR Act. His father might have filed the same. His father expired in LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

the year 1979. Possession of half of the land, in his cultivation, was towards east side, whereas, that of Sh. Kale was on west side. He was using the tubewell of one Sh. Raghubir and Sh. Bhikkan. He has denied the suggestion, as wrong that land was never cultivated by his father or himself or by Sh. Kale. He has further denied the suggestion, as wrong that Sh. Braham Dutt remained in possession of this Khasra number. During cross­ examination by IP No.4 and LRs of IP No.5, he has stated that he does not know if, Sh. Lal Singh, Sh. Kale and Sh. Bahadur had joint holdings. He does not know if, in the year 1958, all the three persons were declared separate Bhumidhar of their holdings. Some of the land was being cultivated jointly and some of the land was being cultivated separately, by these three persons. Suit for injunction was filed against Sh. Kale, Sh. Shanti Swaroop and Sh. Sis Ram, in respect of, land in dispute and other land, which was not decided against them, as in the meantime, the land was acquired. The suggestion is denied, as wrong that Sh. Lal Singh was in possession of land in dispute. The suggestion is denied, as wrong that only Sh. Kale was in possession of the land in suit. In support of their claim, IPs No.1&2 have examined two other witnesses, namely, Sh. Sri Chand and Sh. Chiranji. Witness, Sh. Sri Chand has deposed in his examination­in­chief that he had seen the land in question and knows the parties to the suit. The suit land had been acquired about 10/11 years back. Before its acquisition, Sh. Lal Singh and Sh. Kale had been cultivating it for the last about 10­ LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

12 years. They had been cultivating the land in their own rights. After the death of Sh. Lal Singh and Sh. Kale, the said land was cultivated by Sh. Devi Ram and Sh. Daya Ram and Sh. Shanti Swaroop. His land was near the land in question. The possession of the aforesaid persons was continuous and uninterrupted. During cross­examination, by IP Sh. Braham Dutt, he has stated that area of land in question was about 4 bighas. Both used to cultivate this khasra number jointly and not separately. This land was being irrigated from the well of Sh. Lal Singh. He saw no dispute between Sh. Braham Dutt and these persons. He has admitted that Sh. Braham Dutt was the owner of this land and he was declared Bhumidhar. He has denied the suggestion as wrong that before acquisition of the land, the above said persons were not in its possession. He has further denied the suggestion as wrong that before acquisition, Sh. Braham Dutt remained in possession of the land. During cross­examination, by IP No.4 and LRs of IP No.5, he has deposed that the land was being cultivated for both the harvests. Witness, Sh. Chiranji, has deposed in his examination­in­chief that he had seen the land in question and knows the parties to the suit. The land in question had been acquired about 8­10 years back. The said land was being cultivated by IPs No.1&2 before its acquisition for the last about 8­10 years. They had been cultivating the land in their own rights. He did not see the cultivation of any other person on the suit land except that of IPs No.1&2. His field was also near the suit land. During cross­ LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

examination, by Sh. Dharam Dutt, he has stated that the land was being irrigated by persian wheel fixed at the well of IPs No.1&2. There was no dispute over cultivation of the land of IPs No.1&2 with Sh. Braham Dutt. He does not know when the government took possession of the land. Sh. Braham Dutt was the owner of the land and Sh. Braham Dutt was declared Bhumidhar. The suggestion is denied as wrong that before acquisition, the land was being cultivated by Sh. Braham Dutt. During cross­ examination by IP No.4 and LRs of IP No.5, it was stated that Patwari used to visit the spot and made entries in the record on the spot. Girdhawar also used to visit the spot at the time of Girdhawari and he used to make verification over the spot before checking the entry.

11. The dispute between the interested parties is only with respect to the land, bearing Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas and the only contesting IP is IP No.6, namely, Sh. Braham Dutt, in the present reference, who claims the entire amount of compensation with respect to the acquired land, being its Bhumidhar, was added, on the basis of allowing of the application, moved, by him, U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC. From the perusal of the copies of the Khasra Girdawaris, i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, for the years 1975­76, 1976­77, 1977­78, 1978­79 and 1979­80, placed on record and also relied upon by the IPs No.1&2, it appear that during the years 1975­76, 1976­77, 1977­ 78, 1978­79, land bearing Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, was in the name of Sh. Braham Dutt, S/o LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

Sh. Champat, being its Bhumidhar (tenure holder), whereas, the names of Sh. Kale and Sh. Lal Singh, both sons of Sh. Kure, were recorded in the 'remarks column' thereof, showing them as 'occupants/in possession' of equal portion of the said land and during the year 1979­80, the land bearing Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, was in the name of Sh. Braham Dutt, S/o Sh. Champat, being its Bhumidhar (tenure holder), whereas, the names of Sh. Daya Ram and Sh. Devi Ram, both sons of Sh. Lal Singh and name of Sh. Kale, S/o Sh. Kure, were recorded in the 'remarks column' thereof, showing them as 'occupants/in possession' of half portion each of the said land. IPs No.1&2 have claimed that since the recorded Bhumidhar of the land in question never sought their ejectment U/s 85 of the DLR Act within the statutory period of limitation of three years and these IPs had retained possession of the said land without any interruption and break for a period of more than three years and that too, without any payment of rent/Batati, in view of their cultivatory possession, and as such, they had acquired Bhumidhari Rights U/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954, applicable to the Village Manadawali Fazalpur, Delhi. It is further claimed that one half of the land was originally cultivated by Sh. Lal Singh, i.e., father of IPs No.1&2 and remaining half of the land was cultivated by their uncle Sh. Kale and after demise of their father, the land came into possession of IPs No.1&2 to the extent of one half share and consequently, these IPs are claiming adverse possession over the acquired land. They have also LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

placed on record the copies of the extracts of Section 67(d) of the DLR Act and relied upon the same, which deals with "Extinction of the interest of Bhumidhar" and it lays that "The interest of Bhumidhar in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished­(d) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation." They have further placed on record the copies of the extracts of Section 85 of the DLR Act and relied upon the same, which deals with "Failure to file Suit under section 84 or to execute decree obtained thereunder"­If a suit is not brought under (sub­ section(1) of Section 84) or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining the possession shall ­ (i) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, become a Bhumidhar thereof; (ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof; (iii) in any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of (sub­section(1) of Section

84) apply, become a Bhumidhar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha. Section 84 of the Act deals with "Ejectment of persons occupying land without title"­(1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, and - (a) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhari or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhari or Asami, or (b) where LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidhar, or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be and shall also be liable to pay damages. During the cross­examination, IP No.1, has stated that a suit for injunction was filed against Sh. Kale, Sh. Shanti Swaroop and Sh. Sis Ram, in respect of, land in dispute and other land, which was not decided against them, as in the meantime, the land was acquired and it appears that no separate suit was filed against IPs No.1&2 for their ejectment from the land in question, in accordance with the provisions of Section 84 of the DLR Act. Both the witnesses, as examined on behalf of IPs No.1&2, namely, Sh. Sri Chand and Sh. Chiranji, have deposed that they had seen IPs No.1&2, while cultivating the land in question, which was near to their land and Sh. Braham Dutt never objected to it. From the perusal of the copy of the Award in question, it appears that the land measuring 1992 bighas and 02 biswas was acquired vide Award No.49­C/70­71/Suppl., announced on 22.12.82, by the LAC (MSW), and the notification, in this regard, U/s 4 of LA Act was issued on 13.11.1959, whereas, the declaration/notification, in this regard, U/s 6 of LA Act was issued on 12.07.1966 and the land in question was acquired on 22.12.1982. From the perusal of the copies of Khasra Girdawaris, i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, it appears that land in half portion each, was being cultivated by IPs No.1&2 and also by IP No.3, (who is claimant No.102 in the award under question), respectively, since 1975­76 to 1979­80 LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

without any interruption and break, either from the side of Sh. Champat, or from his son's side, i.e., IP No.6, Sh. Braham Dutt, and as such, it is held that IPs No.1&2 and IP No.3 were having cultivatory possession/adverse possession, on half portion each, over the land, bearing, Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, accordingly, in view of my aforementioned discussion, it appears that IPs No.1&2, IP No.3 and IP No.6, respectively, are entitled to get compensation amount in the acquired land of Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, situated in the Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, in the ratio of 60 : 40, i.e., 60 (30 : 30 each, for IPs No.1&2 and for IP No.3, respectively) and 40 (for IP No.6), respectively, as determined by the LAC, vide Award No.49­C/70­71/Suppl., announced on 22.12.1982. The amount of compensation with respect to the share of IP No.3 in the above land, be made in the name of IP No.4&5, who are his legal heirs.

12. IP No.6, Sh. Braham Dutt, who is claimant No.25, in the award under question, has examined himself as IP6W1 vide his affidavit Ex.IP6/A, wherein, it is stated that the award in question was pronounced on 22.12.1982 and possession was delivered to the acquiring department on 03.03.1983 and on that day, the lands were in actual, physical, cultivatory possession of IP No.6, as is reflected from Khasra Girdawari for the period 1982­83. This IP has relied upon copies of Khasra Girdawaris, i.e., Ex.P2 (colly), for the years 1972­73, 1975­76, 1976­77, 1977­78, 1980­ 81, 1981­82, 1982­83 with respect to the acquired land, bearing LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

Khasra No.1221/201, measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas and from the perusal of the copy of the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1982­83, it appears that land bearing Khasra No.1221/201, measuring 1 bigha and 14 biswa, in the name of IP No.6, was acquired vide Award No.49­C/70­71 on 03.03.1983 and was handed over to Land & Housing Department. Further, from the perusal of the copy of the Khatauni for the year 1968­69, relied upon by the IP No.6, Ex.P2 (colly), in the name of Sh. Champat, i.e., father of IP No.6, it appears that land (0­1), i.e., measuring 1 biswa, part of Khasra No.1221/201 was acquired and went into Railway Line and from the abovesaid discussion, it appears that IP No.6 is solely entitled to get compensation amount with respect to the Khasra No.1221/201, measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas, situated in the Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, as determined by the LAC, vide award under question.

13. Relief :­ In view of the above discussion, it is held that IPs No.1,2&3/LRs and IP No.6 are entitled to get the amount apportioned in the equal ratio, respectively, as per law laid down in Harkishan & ors Vs. Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese 19(1981) DLT 138 - "Delineating the principles, how to value the respective interests of the landlord and the tenant discussed vis­a­vis method of apportionment as explained that when the land is acquired by the Government for building site and the tenants have the occupancy rights, then compensation should be apportioned in equal shares between the landlord and the tenants and having regard to this situation, it cannot be said that either LAC No.36/16 Old No.24/88 Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.

the tenant or the landlord is in a more dominant position in this respect", in the acquired land of Khasra No.1234/201, measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, situated in the Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, in the ratio of 50 : 50, respectively, as of compensation determined by the LAC, vide Award No.49­C/70­ 71/Suppl., announced on 22.12.1982 and the amount of compensation with respect to the share/(s) of IPs above in the above land, be made in the name of IP No.1/LRs and also IP No.4&5, who are legal heirs of IP No.3. It is further, held that IP No.6 is solely entitled to get compensation amount with respect to the Khasra No.1221/201, measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas, situated in the Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, as determined by the LAC, vide Award No.49­C/70­71/Suppl., announced on 22.12.1982. Nazir is directed to release the vouchers after completion of necessary formalities and furnishing of requisite documents. Copy of this judgment be sent to LAC, East District for information and necessary action. In the above said terms, the reference, received from LAC, East District, U/s 30­31, of LA Act, stands disposed off. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open                   SANATAN                 Digitally signed by SANATAN
                                                                PRASAD
                                                                Location: Karkardooma Courts,
Court on 01.04.2019                     PRASAD
                                           ( Sanatan Prasad )
                                                                Delhi
                                                                Date: 2019.04.01 12:30:58 +0530


                                               Additional District Judge­01
                                               (East)/KKD/Delhi / 01.04.19




LAC No.36/16
Old No.24/88
Union of India v. Sh. Debi Ram & Ors.
DOD : 01.04.2019                                                  Page No.16 of 16