Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Jagdish (Since Deceased) vs Union Of India on 3 September, 2011

      IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ: 
               SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI


LAC No. 38/09/98


In the matter of :­
1.    Sh. Jagdish (Since deceased)
      Through his LRs: ­
      (i) Sh. Radhey Shyam
      (ii) Sh. Suresh Kumar
      (iii) Sh. Rajesh Kumar
      (iv) Sh. Pawan Kumar
       (v)  Sh. Ramesh Kumar
       All sons of Late Sh. Jagdish
       (vi) Sh. Lokesh
       S/o Late Sh. Dharam Dutt (Predeceased s/o Late 
       Sh. Jagdish)


2.        Sh. Lakhi (Since deceased through his LRs):
          (i) Sh. Ved Prakash
          (ii) Sh. Harsh Vashishth
           Both the sons of Late Shri Lakhi 
           All R/o VPO Kakrola, New Delhi.
                                                                 ...Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.        Union of India
          Through LAC
          Old Terminal Tax Building, 
          Kapashera, New Delhi.




LAC No. 38/09/98                                                              Page 1/23
 2.     Gaon Sabha of Village Kakrola
       Through B.D.O. (South West),
       BDO Office Najafgarh,
       New Delhi.


3.     Delhi Development Authority
       Through its Chairman,
       Vikas Sadan, INA, 
       New Delhi. 
                                                                     ...Respondents
                                         Village      :    Kakrola
                                         Award No.:   1/93­94
Filed on     : 02.05.1998
Reserved on : 30.08.2011
Decided on   : 03.09.2011


JUDGMENT :

­

1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. A large chunk of land of village Kakrola, New Delhi was acquired for the planned development of Delhi vide Award No. 1/93­94.

3. Land which is subject matter of this reference was also acquired vide same award.

4. There is a dispute between petitioners and Gaon Sabha with regard to right to receive the compensation for certain parcels of land. The contention of Gaon Sabha is that those parcels of land had LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 2/23 vested in it's favour under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 because the petitioners were using those parcels of land for non­ agricultural purposes.

5. There is another dispute in as much as LAC (SW) in statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act has alleged that certain parcels of land, though acquired, but their possession was not taken over. This assertion of LAC is denied by the petitioners.

6. To understand the disputes clearly, details of statement under Section 19 of L. A. Act are necessary to be discussed at this stage.

7. As per this statement, total land in question is 206 bigha and 9 biswa. Both petitioners (and now their LRs) are having ½ share each in land measuring 135 bigha and 2 biswa. Khasra numbers of these parcels of land in item No. 163 and 164 are 24//16 (4­16), 25 (4­16), 45//1/1 (2­10), 1/2 (0­12), 1/3 (1­14), 2 (4­12), 9 (4­18), 10 (4­16), 11/1 (4­5), 46//2 (4­16), 3 (4­16), 4 (4­16), 5 (4­16), 69//18 min (3­0), 44//21 (4­16), 22 min (3­17), 33//22/1 (0­19), 34//16 (4­4), 17 (4­4), 37//6/1 (4­7), 38//2/8 (2­0), 43//22 (4­16), 23 (4­16), 43//24 (4­16), 25 (4­16), 70//4/1 (2­4), 7 (4­9), 8(4­16), 9 (4­16), 10 (4­16), 11 (4­16), 12 Min (4­12), 13 Min (4­4) and 69//17 min (1­15) which is totaling 135 bigha and 2 bigha.

8. Note appended by the LAC on the statement under Section 19 of the L A Act shows that possession of khasra No. 24//16 LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 3/23 (4­16), 25 (4­16), 33//22/1 (0­19) and 38//2/8 (2­0) totaling 12 bigha and 11 biswa is not yet taken over.

9. Therefore, in item No. 163 and 164, possession of 122 bigha and 11 biswa of land is admitted to be taken over by the collector (135 bigha 2 biswa minus 12 bigha 11 biswa = 122 bigha 11 biswa).

10. Petitioners have filed objections to the statement under Section 19 of L A Act and have stated that possession of land in khasra No. 24//16 (4­16) and 25 (4­16) totaling 9 bigha and 12 biswa is also taken over. Therefore, in view of rival case of parties, it is for the petitioners to prove in this reference that the collector has taken possession of above two said parcels of land.

11. As there is no protest raised by petitioners in their objections to revised statement under section 19 of Land Acquisition Act regarding land in khasra No. 33//22/1 (0­19) and 38//2/8 (2­0) totaling 2 bigha and 19 biswa, this reference shall be decided treating that possession of these 2 parcels of land is admittedly not yet taken over.

12. Next, in item No. 800­801, petitioners are admittedly shown recorded owner of land in Khasra No. 45//11/2 (0­11), 12 (6­4) and 69//17/1 min (0­16) totaling 7 bigha and 11 biswa. Both petitioners have half share in the land referred in item no. 800­801. LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 4/23

13. Further, in item No. 994, land measuring 63 bigha and 16 biswa is shown recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. These Khasra numbers are 25//11/2, (0­16), 17 (4­16), 18 (4­16), 19 (4­16), 20 (4­16), 21 (4­16), 22 (4­13), 23 (4­16), 24 (4­16), 30//1 (4­16), 2/1 (4­11), 2/2 (0­8), 3 (4­16), 4 (4­16), 86//3/2/2 (2­5), 4/2/2 (1­4), 7/2/2 (0­5) and 13/2/2 (1­14) totaling 63 bigha and 16 biswa.

14. In item No. 994, there are again 2 disputes. LAC claims only possession of Khasra No. 21 (4­16), 22 (4­13), 30//1 (4­16), 2/1 (4­11) and 2/2 (0­8) totaling 19 bigha and 4 biswa is taken over and possession of remaining 44 bigha and 12 biswa is not yet taken over.

15. Petitioners have denied that the possession of entire land measuring 63 bigha 16 biswa is not yet taken over by LAC. Then next two controversies are (i) LAC's statement shows that entire land is vested in Gaon Sabha but petitioners case is that only 58 bigha 8 biswa of land is vested in Gaon Sabha and (ii) even vesting of 58 bigha 6 biswa in Gaon Sabha is challenged by petitioners as petitioners had again become bhumidar by adverse possession.

16. As would be discussed in following paragraphs, Gaon Sabha has not claimed ownership over land in Khasra No. 86//3/2/2 (2­5), 4/2/2 (1­4), 7/2/2 (0­5) and 13/2/2 (1­14) totaling 5 bigha and 8 biswa. Gaon Sabha has restricted in the written statement its claim over 58 bigha and 8 biswa of land in item No. 994. LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 5/23

17. In this reference, besides Union of India through LAC, Gaon Sabha, DDA ( the beneficiary) and the Ministry of Urban Development were given notice. Notice to this Ministry was given because land in question was urbanized under section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and successor of Gaon Sabha in pending proceedings is Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi.

18. Only Gaon Sabha and Union of India have filed their written statements. DDA, though represented before the court, did not file any written statement. Ministry of Urban Development, did not appear at all before the Court in spite of service.

19. Petitioners in their claim petition have claimed enhancement in market value of the land from Rs. 96,875/­ per bigha as determined by the collector to Rs. 50 lacs per acre. Petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs. 60,000/­ for rooms and borings for tube well and wells, Rs. 3 lacs for standing trees, Rs. 5 lacs for building and structure and Rs. 5 lacs damages for severance from their other land. The petitioners have also challenged apportionment in favour of Gaon Sabha.

20. Union of India, in its written statement, has opposed any more enhancement in market value of the land in question.

21. Gaon Sabha in its written statement has restricted relief for 58 bigha and 5 biswa in its favour. Gaon Sabha has stated that this land had vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of Delhi LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 6/23 Land Reforms Act, 1954. Said order was never challenged before higher authorities by the petitioners. Therefore, Gaon Sabha has opposed any enhancement of compensation for 58 bigha and 6 biswa of land in favour of petitioners.

22. Considering pleadings of parties, Ld. Predecessor of this court had framed following issues:­

(i) Whether the possession of land in dispute was taken from petitioner and if so, its effect? OPP.

(ii)Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what effect?

(iii)To what enhancement if any, the petitioner is entitled to, if so, to what extent?

(iv) Relief.

23. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India' which was LAA No. 673/08, vide its judgment dated 23.10.2008 has determined the market value of the land which was subject matter of award in question, at Rs. 1,20,500/­ per bigha.

24. As would be seen and as also conceded by counsel for Petitioners, evidence brought on record by the petitioners in this reference is already considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while determining the market value of the similar other land which was also subject matter of Award No. 1/93­94 in the case of Ved Prakash (Supra).

LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 7/23

25. There is no reason to take a different view in this reference for determining the market value of the land in question than already taken by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the market value of land in this reference would also be Rs. 1,20,500/­ per bigha.

26. Only questions to be answered in this reference are (i) effect of vesting orders passed under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act vis­a­vis land in item no. 994 and (ii) which are the parcels of land whose possession is not yet taken overby the LAC?

27. Petitioners have examined 14 witnesses in support of their case.

28. PW­1 is examined only for the purposes of enhancement in the market value of the land and his evidence is therefore not necessary to be discussed as the market value in this reference shall be as per case of Ved Prakash (supra).

29. PW­2 examined by Petitioners was Sh. N.N. Puri, advocate who was the Deputy Director in DDA on 07.07.1993. This witness was examined for proving affidavit filed by him in his official capacity in CCP No. 182/93 before the Hon'ble High Court which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. This witness was examined to prove that LAC had taken possession of the land on 14.09.1992.

30. The Contempt of Court Petition had arisen out of CWP No. 2326/91 filed by petitioners challenging acquisition of their land. In this writ petition, Gaon Sabha was not a party. In this writ­ LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 8/23 petition, on 25.02.91 orders were passed not to dispossess the petitioners. As possession was taken over during pendency of writ petition, contempt petition was filed.

31. Sh. Mahender Singh, Patwari was examined as PW­3. This witness was examined to prove affidavit filed by him in CCP No. 182/93 which was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. This affidavit was also exhibited to prove that possession of land in question was taken over on 14.09.92.

32. PW­4 Sh. Rajinder Ram, Halka Patwari was examined for proving khatonis for the year 1981­82 which were exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. As per Exhibit PW4/A, land measuring 58 bigha and 6 biswa only had vested in Gaon Sabha. Land measuring 5 bigha 8 biswa alleged to be vested in Gaon Sabha as per Statement under section 19 of Land Acquisition Act in Khasra No. 86//3/2/2 (2­5), 4/2/2(1­4), 7/2/2 (0­05) and 13/2/2 (1­14) is not mentioned as vested in Gaon Sabha. Akshajra of Khasra No. 12 and 69 was exhibited as Ex.PW4/C and Akshajra of khasra No. 16 was exhibited as Ex.PW4/D.

33. PW­5 Sh. Ramesh Pal Verma, Assistant Director of DDA, Horticulture was examined for the purposes of enhancement in the market value of the land in question. As market value in this reference is to be decided with reference to the judgment in the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the evidence of this witness is not necessary to LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 9/23 be discussed.

34. PW­6 Sh. Kushal Pal Sharma was examined for proving Kabja Karwahi of Award No. 1/93­94 which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/1. This report runs into 27 pages. Possession was taken on 3 different dates. These dates are 26.08.1992, 14.09.1992 and 02.03.1994. Neither while addressing final arguments nor in written arguments, counsel for petitioners pointed out from possession report that khasra numbers whose possession is denied by LAC is shown in the possession report. Therefore, from this document it is not shown that statement under section 19 filed by LAC is wrong vis­a­vis possession.

35. PW­7 was summoned by oversight of the petitioner and his statement was not required to be recorded.

36. Evidence of PW­8 Sh. R.P.S. Shammi is also irrelevant because the same is with regard to enhancement in the market value of the land which is already covered by the case of Ved Prakash (supra). Same is the position with regard to PW­9.

37. Evidence of PW­10 Sh. Dalip Singh, UDC is also not relevant because this witness was examined to prove notification dated 20.08.1974 as per which Central Govt had placed land of several villages at the disposal of DDA. Even counsel for petitioners has not referred to this evidence in arguments. LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 10/23

38. PW­11, Sh. Sunil Kumar, Halka Patwari of village Kakrola was summoned to prove records of three files bearing case No. 201/90, 1717/89 and 209/90. He referred to two other cases which are Case No. 1461/89 and 26/NG/96. In Case No. 1461/89, certified copy of which is on the record, ejectment order dated 23.08.1989 was passed under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act for land now shown in Item No. 994 except 86/3/2/2 (2­5), 4/2/2 (1­4), 7/2/2 (0­5) and 13/2/2 (1­14) total measuring 5 bigha 8 biswa. Case No. 26/NG/96 was initiated for violation of Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act in Khasra No. 24//16 (4­16) and 25 (4­16) totaling 9 bigha, 2 biswa. These proceedings were dropped vide orders dated 22.07.1998 due to acquisition of land. Certified copy of case records of case No. 201/90 was exhibited as Ex.PW11/1. These proceedings were initiated on 18.06.1990 under section 86A of the Act for 58 bigha and 8 biswa of land which was subject matter of ejectment proceedings under Section 81 of DLR Act in Case No. 1461/89. Surprisingly, Ld. SDM/RA passed ejectment order on 31.05.1999 whereas land stood acquired on 14.09.1992. New Khatoni prepared in the year 2003­04 was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A.

39. PW­12 Smt. Renu Bakshi, Sr. Judicial Assistant, Record Room of Delhi High Court produced the records of CCP No. 182/93, affidavit of LAC Sh. P.C. Chaturvedi was exhibited as Ex.PW12/1 and order dated 04.04.1995 passed by Hon'ble High Court LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 11/23 is CCP No. 182/93 was exhibited as Ex.PW12/2.

40. Next witness is also described as PW­12 by oversight whereas he should have been described as PW­13. This witness, was summoned to produce Kabja Karwahi of certain parcels of land which were 24//16(4­16), 25 (4­16), 25//11/2 (0­16), 17 (4­16), 18 (4­16), 19 (4­16), 20 (4­16), 23(4­16), 24(4­16), 30//3 (4­16), 4 (4­16), 86/3/2/2 (2­5), 4/2/2 (1­4), 7/2/2 (0­5), 13/2/2/2 (1­14). Rather than helping the cause of petitioners, this witness further showed that such parcels of land whose possession is shown not to be taken over by LAC in statement under section 19 of LA Act were indeed not taken over. Possession report was not filed as the same was not available in the office of BDO, South­West Najafgarh, New Delhi.

41. In the end, Sh. Radhey Shyam one of LRs of petitioners entered witness box as PW­13. This witness exhibited certified copies of khasra Girdawaris for the year 1986­87, 1987­88, 1988­89, 1989­90 and 1990­91 which were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW13/1. The Khatoni for the year 1981­82 along with Akshajras was exhibited as Ex.13/B. Khasra Girdawari for the year 1988­89 for Kh. No. 25/18 (4­16) shows class of land as 'Gair Mumkin Plot.' Same is the position with Kh. No. 30/1 (4­16), Kh. No. 30/2/1 (4­11), 30/2/2 (0­8), 30/3 (4­16), 30/4 (4­16). In column of 'Nature of Crops' Gair Mumkin Chardiwari is mentioned. Yet again, these khasra girdarwaris in no way help the case of petitioners as they establish use of LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 12/23 agricultural land for non­agricultural purposes.

42. Petitioner was subjected to a brief cross­examination. He stated in the cross­examination that only land measuring 58 bigha and 6 biswa is disputed with gaon sabha. He further admitted that in land measuring 58 bigha 6 biswa the recorded owner is Gaon Sabha, Kakrola. He stated that although the land had vested in gaon sabha but its possession remained with the petitioners who handed over the same to the acquiring authority.

43. On behalf of Union of India reliance was placed only on award in question. So far as Gaon Sabha is concerned, certified copy of khatoni is filed which was exhibited as Ex.RW1/1.

44. This is the entire evidence that has been brought on record by the parties.

45. Arguments were addressed by Sh. B. S. Mann and Sh. Jai Prakash, Learned counsels for petitioners, Sh. Vikram Singh Girsa, Learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sh. Arvind Gupta, Learned counsel for the DDA.

46. Counsel for petitioners as well as counsel for Gaon Sabha have filed their written arguments also.

47. In the written submissions of Gaon Sabha, it is stated that Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner of land measuring 68 bigha and 16 biswa and this fact is evident from statement under Section 19 of L A Act filed by the LAC. It is stated that the said land got vested LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 13/23 in favour of Gaon Sabha due to contravention of provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is stated that the petitioners themselves have admitted the vesting order passed by Ld. SDM / RA on 23.08.1989 and said order was never set aside. Relying upon such an admission on the part of petitioners, counsel for Gaon Sabha has opposed grant of compensation for 63 bigha and 16 biswa of land in favour of petitioners.

48. On the point of possession of petitioners, it is stated that stray entry of possession which may have been manipulated by the petitioners cannot entitle the petitioners to claim the entire compensation.

49. So far as the allegation of not carrying out any execution to eject the petitioners is concerned, counsel for gaon sabha has argued that period of execution is 12 years and before the lapse of period of 12 years the land was acquired.

50. Counsel for Gaon Sabha has also argued that in the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenge was only to the land of which petitioners were the recorded owners and not for land where recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha.

51. It is also argued that petitioners have failed to prove their possession after passing of orders under Section 81 of DLR Act, 1954.

LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 14/23

52. Relying upon the judgment in RFA No. 369/02 titled as "Randhir Singh & Anr. versus Union of India & Anr." and 118 (2005) DLT 320 DB titled as "Sri Chand versus LAC & Anr." it was argued that only a recorded owner should be given the compensation.

53. On the other hand, in the short synopsis filed by petitioners they have stated that there is no dispute of title / apportionment with regard to land measuring 135 bigha 2 biswa and 7 bigha 11 biswa totaling 142 bigha and 43 biswa and title dispute is only with regard to land measuring 58 bigha and 6 biswa. Petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in L A A No. 673/8 titled as "Ved Prakash versus Union of India" dated 23.10.2008 to claim enhanced compensation @ Rs. 1,20,500/­ per bigha.

54. So far as dispute with regard to title for land measuring 58 bigha 6 bigha is concerned, petitioners have admitted that on 26.04.1989 an order was passed by ld. RA / SDM, Punjabi Bagh in case No. 1461/1989 in proceedings under Section 81 of D L R Act and petitioners were directed to stop the mis users within 3 months.

55. It is stated that on 23.08.1989 final order was passed by Ld. SDM/ RA noting that petitioners have not stopped the mis user of land.

LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 15/23

56. It is further stated that though the land had vested in Gaon Sabha, the Gaon Sabha never got the order executed and petitioners remained in possession of the land till its acquisition. Possession was taken over on 14.09.1992. It is the contention of petitioners that the period of limitation for execution of an order under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act is 3 years. As within a period of 3 years, Gaon Sabha did not take the possession from petitioners, the decree / order extinguished as per provision of Section 67 (d) of DLR Act and in view of Section 85 of DLR Act, the land again reverted back in the bhumidari of the petitioners due to continuous adverse possession. Petitioners have relied upon Ex.PW11/1 as per which proceedings against petitioners under Section 86 A of DLR Act in case No. 201/90 were dismissed.

57. The contention of petitioners is that the period of limitation commenced on 26.04.1989 when the order of vesting was passed by the ld. SDM / RA and expired on 26.04.1992 when the period of 3 years expired.

58. As possession was taken by LAC in September 1992, the petitioners were having bhumidari rights for the same as per provisions of Section 85 of D L R Act. It is argued that mere vesting in land of gaon sabha under Section 81 of L A Act is not sufficient unless and untill the persons occupying the land are ejected and the vesting order is executed in accordance with law. LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 16/23

59. To show possession over land in question, the petitioners have relied upon certified copies of khasra girdawaris which are Ex.PW13/1 (colly.). Reliance is also placed on the evidence of PW­12, Sh. K.P. Singh, Panchayat Secretary of gaon sabha who has stated that there is no possession report / kabja karwahi of the land which is recorded in the name of gaon sabha. In absence of taking over of possession, the petitioners have claimed the entire compensation relying upon Section 85 of DLR Act.

60. Sections 84, 85 and 86A of DLR Act are as under: ­ "84. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title

- (1) A persons taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the law for the time being in force, and -

(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidar or Asami, or

(b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Bhumidar, Asami or Gaon Sabha, as the case may be, and shall also be liable to pay damages."

"85. Failure to file suit under Section 84 or to execute obtained thereunder - If a suit is not brought under Section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for failing of the suit or execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall -

LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 17/23

(i) where the land forms part of the holding of Bhumidar, become a Bhumidar 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 Bhumidar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha."

86A. Ejectment by revenue assistant of persons occupying land without title - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 84, 85 and 86, the Revenue Assistant also may, on receiving information or on his own motion, eject any person who is liable to be ejected from any land on a suit of the Gaon Sabha under any of those sections, after following such procedure as may be prescribed].

61. The contention of counsel for Gaon Sabha that period of limitation is 12 years for execution of an order under Section 86A of Delhi Land Reforms Act is incorrect.

62. Perusal of Schedule 1 prepared under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act clearly shows that period of limitation for execution of an order under Section 86A of D L R Act is the same as in the case of Section 84, 85 and 86 of the Act as the case may be.

63. The period of limitation for execution of an order under Section 84 and 85 is three years. Period of limitation for ejectment under Section 85(1) is one year. However, Section 85(1) of LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 18/23 DLR Act is not attracted in this case.

64. Order in this case is passed under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and not under Section 86A of the Act. Under Section 86A of the Act, SDM/RA can act suo motto to eject a person who is liable to be evicted under Section 84, 85 and 86 of DLR Act. Therefore, the argument of counsel for Gaon Sabha is rejected being contrary to law and being not relevant as Section 86A of the Act will not applicable to the facts of this case.

65. Reliance by counsel for Gaon Sabha on the case of 'Sri Chand' is also wrong as that was a case of dispute between a father and son where son was claiming compensation as a coparcernor. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the compensation be given to the recorded owner. Facts of this case are different. Here, Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner but petitioners continued to be in possession even after vesting of land in Gaon Sabha in absence of ejectment proceedings.

66. However, the contention of petitioners that they have become bhumidar of the land under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act is also not made out from the records.

67. Petitioners are claiming adverse possession w.e.f. 26.04.1989. They are claiming that as on 26.04.1992 three years had lapsed from passing of vesting order in favour of Gaon Sabha. Possession was taken over in September, 1992. As such, the LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 19/23 petitioners had remained in possession of land for more than 3 years after vesting and they had become owner because Gaon Sabha had failed to file ejectment suit within the period of limitation.

68. The above argument of the petitioners is rejected because although possession was taken on 14.09.1992 after more than three years of passing of final order of vesting of land in Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of DLR Act on 23.08.1989 but still petitioners cannot claim that they had become bhumidar by adverse possession.

69. The reason for the same is that period of limitation is not to be counted from the date of passing of the vesting order but from the 1st of July following the date of occupation. Reference can be made to serial no. 19 of the Schedule referred earlier.

70. The adverse possession of petitioners is claimed with effect from 23rd August,1989 when the final order of vesting was passed in favour of Gaon Sabha by Ld. SDM/RA. However, the limitation would commence from 1st July, 1990 and period of three years would expire on 30th June, 1993. Therefore, when the possession of land was taken over in September, 1992 the adverse possession of the petitioners over land in question had not ripened to vest bhumidari rights as period of three years had not lapsed by then.

71. Therefore, the plea of petitioners that although admittedly they had lost title over land in question for using the land for non­agricultural purposes and in spite of their failure to restore the LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 20/23 land to agricultural purposes, due to adverse possession over land in question for three years, they again bhumidar under Section 85 of DLR Act is rejected.

72. There is no challenge on any other ground to the vesting of land in favour of gaon sabha by the petitioners. Therefore, right of the petitioners over land which is shown vested in gaon sabha fails.

73. In conclusion the findings on issues framed in this reference would be as under:­ ISSUE NO. 1, 2 AND 3: ­

74. It is held that possession of land mentioned in item No. 994 i.e land in khasra No. 21 (4­16), 22(4­13), 30/1(4­16), 2/1 (4­11) and 2/2 (0­8) was taken over from the petitioners. However, this fact will make no difference as the land had vested in gaon sabha and adverse possession of petitioners had not yet ripened into bhumidari rights because period of three years had not lapsed from 1st of July following the date of occupation when possession of land was taken over by the Collector. Land in Khasra No. 86/3/2/1 (2­5), 4/2/2 (1­4), 7/2/2 (0­5) and 13/2/2 (1­14) totalling 5 bigha 8 biswa had not vested in Gaon Sabha. However, its possession was not taken over by LAC. Therefore, so long as its possession is not handed over to collector, no relief can be given to Petitioners. Remaining land in Item No. 994, except those Khasras mentioned above had vested in Gaon LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 21/23 Sabha and their possession was not taken over by LAC. Therefore, no relief can be given to petitioners qua them.

75. In item No. 163, 164, 800 and 801, possession of land measuring 12 bigha 11 biswa was not taken over which is land in Khasra No. 24//16 (4­16), 25 (4­16), 33//22/1 (0­19) and 38/2/8 (2­00). Therefore, petitioners will get no relief for these parcels of land till the time its possession is taken over by LAC.

76. RELIEF:­ Petitioners are declared entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 1,20,500/­ per bigha with all statutory benefits as per law in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Ved Prakash (Supra). This relief will be for 130 bigha and 2 biswa of land only in Item No. 163, 164, 800 and 801 of the naksha muntzamin and as shown in statement under Section 19 of LA Act filed by the LAC while sending this reference to this Court. This is the land whose possession was taken over by LAC. Petitioners would get no relief vis­a­vis land mentioned in item no. 994 because said land had vested in Gaon Sabha and its possession was not taken over. Possession of land in Khasra No. 25/21, 22, 30//1, 2/1 and 2/2 was only taken over but this land is vested in Gaon Sabha. Further, no relief is given to petitioners qua land in Khasra No. 86//3/2/2, 4/2/2, 7/2/2, 13/2/2 because though this land did not vest in Gaon Sabha but its possession was not taken over. As and when possession of land not vested in Gaon Sabha is taken over by LAC, petitioners would get LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 22/23 same relief qua market value etc. as given for the land whose possession is taken over from the petitioners.

77. The reference petition is answered accordingly. Let decree be prepared in terms of this judgment. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the LAC (SW) for information and necessary action and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open Court on the 3rd day of September, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No. 38/09/98 Page 23/23