Delhi District Court
9.08.75 46/So 11//22/3 (0-3) Sh. Sumer ... vs Financial Commissioner on 22 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ: ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI.
LAC No. 17/11/04
In the matter of :-
592. Sh. Jas Raj Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh ...Recorded Owner No. 1
593. Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh ...Recorded Owner No. 2
594. Sh. Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh ...Recorded Owner No. 3
595. Sh. Bhola Ram S/o Sh. Abhay Ram ...Recorded Owner No. 4
All R/o Village Pochan Pur, Delhi-45
1. Sh. Rohtash Singh S/o Sh. Tek Chand ...IP No. 1
2. Sh. Raj Pal S/o Sh. Khem Chand ...IP No. 2
3. Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Hoshiar Singh ...IP No. 3
4. Sh. Jai Lal S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh ...IP No. 4
All R/o Village Pochanpur, Delhi-45
Award No. : 30/2002-03
Village : Pochanpur
Filed on : 07.08.2004
Reserved on : 21.12.2011
Decided on : 22.12.2011
J U D G M E N T :-
1. This is a reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Subject matter of this reference is land in Khasra No. 11//22/2 (3-0), 22/3 Min (0-12) and 11//22/3 Min (0-3) situated in revenue estate of village Pochanpur, New Delhi.
3. The recorded owners of first two parcels of land are Sh. Jasraj Singh, Sh. Raj Singh, Sh. Vijay Singh all sons of late Sh. Sumer Singh having 1/3 rd share each in these two parcels of land and in the third and last parcel of land, the recorded owner is Sh. Bhola Ram son of Sh. Abhay Ram who is having entire LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 1/18 share in that parcel of land.
4. The land in question stands acquired vide award No. 30/2002-03 and LAC has determined that compensation payable for this land is Rs. 16,65,833.94.
5. However, the compensation was not released in favour of recorded owners for the reason that objections were filed by IP No. 1 to 4 who are Sh. Rohtash Singh son of Sh. Tek Chand, Sh. Raj Pal son of Sh. Khem Chand, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Jai Pal sons of Sh. Hoshiyar Singh.
6. In view of the objections, LAC has referred this reference to this court for adjudication of dispute of title as well as apportionment.
7. Claim petition is filed and evidence is brought on record only by recorded owners No. 592 to 594. Neither any claim was filed by recorded owner No. 595 nor any evidence was brought on record on his behalf.
8. Similarly only IP No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh son of Sh. Tek Chand and IP No. 2 Sh. Raj Pal son of Sh. Khem Chand have filed their independent claim petition and have led independent evidence in support of their claims.
9. For reasons best known to IP No. 3 and 4 they have neither filed any claim petition nor have led any evidence, though vakalatnama of their counsel was filed.
10. Case of objector No. 1:- Sh. Rohtash Singh has filed his claim petition along with several others such as Sh. Azad Singh, Sh. Bhoop Singh, Sh. Sh. Hari Om, Sh. Rambir Singh, Sh. Suraj Bhan, Sh. Surender Singh and Sh. Rajbir Singh. Except for Sh. Rohtash Singh, none of the named persons who joined Sh. Rohtash Singh in filing the claim petition is shown as interested person by the LAC while referring the dispute to this court.
11. Moreover, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by these persons was dismissed as not pressed vide orders dated 06.01.2011 on the plea that an application for a fresh reference is already moved by them before LAC.
12. Therefore, the claim dated 14.09.2005 shall be treated as claim of LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 2/18 Sh. Rohtash Singh only.
13. It is stated in the claim petition by IP No. 1 and other joint owners that they were joint owners of 1/3rd share of total land measuring 2 bighas and 8 biswas of khasra No. 1/49, Village Pochanpur, New Delhi being legal heirs of Sh. Beg Raj and Sh. Tak Chand.
14. It is further stated in the claim petition that the value of total land of Khasra No. 1/49 measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa during Chakbandi was included in the share of Mr. Sumer Singh which has been confirmed by the office of SDM as per revenue record vide its report dated 31.12.1998.
15. It is further stated that rights of predecessor of IP No. 1 were determined and finalized by Sh. K.N. Srivastava, Revenue Assistant, Delhi under Section 11 of Delhi Land Reforms Act vide his order dated 31.08.1971.
16. It is stated that the application of IP No. 1 for implementation of the order dated 31.08.1971 was dismissed by Revenue Assistant vide his order dated 18.04.2001. IP No. 1 had filed an appeal before District Collector bearing Appeal No. 20/2001 against the order dated 18.04.2001 which was allowed vide orders dated 23.01.2003 and impugned order dated 18.04.2001 was set aside.
17. Therefore, it is stated by IP No. 1 that he along with others who had filed claim petition with him had 1/3rd share in the land in question and Sh. Bhoop Singh, Smt. Omwati, Smt. Bharpai and Smt. Dhan Kaur had 1/12th share in the land in question.
18. It is the contention of IP No. 1 that the land of Khasra No. 1/49 measuring (2-8) and value thereof was added in the account of Sh. Sumer Singh during Chakbandi and substituted land has been allotted to Sh. Sumer Singh, which has been acquired and the claim of the same is subject matter of present case.
19. Resultantly, IP No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh claimed relief for 1/3rd of compensation along with others who had joined with him in filing the claim petition and also prayed that 1/12th of the share of compensation be given to Sh. Bhoop Singh.
LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 3/1820. Recorded owners have not filed any written statement to the claim of IP No. 1.
21. Case of objector No. 2:- IP No. 2 Sh. Raj Pal Singh has stated in his claim petition that his predecessor Sh. Niadar son of Sh. Molar was owner of 1/3rd share of total land measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa of khasra No. 1/49 in village Pochanpur, New Delhi.
22. After the death of the predecessor in interest of the objector, the said land devolved upon present objector through his father Sh. Khem Chand son of Sh. Niadar. It is stated that Sh. Raj Pal Singh, IP No. 2 is the grandson of Sh. Niadar.
23. It is stated in the claim petition that apart from the said land, the predecessor in interest of the objector was also owner of 1/3rd share of Khasra No. 1/12 ad-measuring 15 bighas 4 biswa.
24. Rest of the averments made in the claim petition are similar as made in the claim petition of IP No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh.
25. This IP No. 2 has claimed that 1/3rd share of amount awarded to Sh. Sumer Singh for the land allotted to him against Khasra No. 1/49 be given to him.
26. Recorded owners have not filed any reply / written statement to this claim petition.
27. Case of Recorded owners No. 1-3:- Recorded owners at serial No. 592 to 594 have filed a joint claim and have stated that their father was the recorded bhumidar and in possession of the suit land and he had transferred the suit land to the mother of the answering interested persons vide sale deed executed in the year 1984 and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the mother of the answering interested persons on the basis of said sale deed.
28. It is stated that the suit land was allotted to the father of the answering interested persons during consolidation operation in lieu of the pre consolidation land and this allotment was never challenged by anybody during the LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 4/18 consolidation operation and as such the allotment had attained finality.
29. It is further stated that the mother of answering interested persons had expired on 19.10.2000 and after her death, the land has been inherited by the answering interested persons and accordingly the mutation had been sanctioned by tehsildar in favour of answering interested persons vide order dated 29.11.2000 and in this way, the answering interested persons were the recorded owner of the suit land prior to its acquisition.
30. It is stated that other IPs never disputed the rights of the answering IPs or their predecessor in interest at any point of time. They have also averred that they were in possession of the land in question at the time of acquisition and LAC has assessed compensation in favour of recorded owners which be released in their favour.
31. No reply / written statement was filed by objectors to the claim of Recorded Owners.
32. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the issue before the court is (i) which IP is entitled to receive the compensation and share thereof? Onus to prove this issue was on the parties.
33. Evidence of objector No. 1:- On behalf of objector No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh, only one witness was examined who is IP No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh himself. Similar statements have been made in his evidence by way of affidavit as were made in claim petition by this IP. Following documents were tendered and exhibited:-
(i) Exhibit OP1/A: Certified copy of report of Patwari dated 31.12.1998. As per this report of Patwari, during consolidation, half value of Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) was added in account of Sh.
Sumer Singh (son) and Smt. Amrati, Smt. Manbhari, Smt. Savitri (daughters) of Sh.
Hukum Singh and half in account of LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 5/18 Smt. Basanti, mother of Sh. Ram Rattan but this value should have been added in the account of Sh. Inderraj etc. as per order of Sh. K. N. Srivastava, Revenue Assistant.
(ii) Exhibit OP1/B: Certified copy of report of Patwari
dated 13.07.99. As per this report,
objectors were not given any land
during consolidation proceedings as
per order dated 31.08.71 passed by
Sh. K.N. Srivastava, Revenue
Assistant for land in Khasra No.
1/49 (2-8).
(iii) Exhibit OP1/C: Certified copy of application dated
18.10.97 filed by objectors for
recording entry in regard to
Khasra No. 1/29 (2-8) as per order
dated 31.08.1971 passed by
Revenue Assistant Sh. K.N.
Srivastava.
(iv) Exhibit OP1/D: Certified copy of report of Naib
Tehsildar dated 05.01.2000. As per
this report, land allotted to Shri
Sumer Singh during consolidation
proceedings for value of 1/49 (2-8) is
sold to Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Sh.
Vijay Singh and Smt. Shayamo Devi wife of
Sh. Sumer Singh and on date
there is no land in the name of Sh.
Sumer Singh.
LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 6/18
(v) Exhibit OP1/E: Certified copy of order dated
23.01.02 passed by District Collector
District (SW): This order was passed by the
Deputy Commissioner on the appeal of
objectors challenging order dated
18.04.2001 passed by SDM/RA dated
18.04.2001 dismissing application dated
18.10.97 filed by objector to implement
order dated 31.08.71 passed by SDM/RA
Sh. K.N. Srivastava with regard to Khasra
No. 1/49 (2-8) of village Pochanpur. SDM/
RA vide its order dated 18.04.2001 had
dismissed the application of objectors as
time barred. Relying upon Rule 178 of
Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 appeal
was allowed and matter was remanded
back before SDM/RA for afresh decision.
The District Collector also concluded
that "It is clarified that this order will not
have anything to do with issue of
possession of the land of the parties".
34. In cross-examination, this objector deposed that he did not know how much was the value of land which was allotted to his predecessors after consolidation. He stated that they must have been allotted land equivalent to their land prior to consolidation. He deposed that Sh. Sumer Singh, father of present recorded owners was allotted land after consolidation as per his entitlement and equivalent to sum total of value of his land before consolidation. He stated that the land in question had remained in possession of Shri Sumer Singh till his death. He also stated that neither he has challenged sale deed executed by Shri Sumer Singh LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 7/18 in favour of Smt. Shayama his wife nor he challenged mutation in her name. He stated that he did not challenge release deed executed by Smt. Imarati, Smt. Manbhari and Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of Sh. Sumer Singh. He stated that he did not file any objection when land in question was mutated in favour of sons of Sh. Sumer Singh as he had already filed objections in the year 1997.
35. Evidence of Objector No. 2:- Objector No. 2 Sh. Rajpal also filed his evidence by way of affidavit and deposed similar facts as were already deposed in his claim petition. Order dated 31.8.71 was exhibited as Exhibit OP2/A. As per this order, Shri K.N. Srivastava SDM/RA had decided an application under Section 11 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. This applications was filed by father of recorded owners No. 1-4 Shri Sumer Singh, Shri Tek Chand, father of Shri Rohtash Singh. Shri Niadar grandfather of objector Shri Rajpal Singh, Smt. Imrati, Smt Manbhari, Smt. Savitri, sister of Shri Sumer Singh etc. against respondents who are not party to this reference. In sum and substance the conclusion drawn by SDM/RA in his order dated 31.08.71 is under:-
"In view of my findings on issue No. 1 the names of following alone shall be recorded on Kh.Nos. 1/12 (15-04) and 1/49 (2-8). Names of respondents shall be expunged from Kh. No. 1/12 (15-04):
1. Indraj )
2. Beg Raj ) sons of Mam Chand
3. Tek Chand) together ¼th share in equal shares)
4. Bhup Singh (son)
5. Chhankaur (widow)
6. Om Wati (daughter) of Giani
7. Bharpai (daughter) together 1/12th share (all in equal shares)
8. Niadar son of Molar 1/3rd share
9. Sumer Singh son of Hukmi LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 8/18
10.Imrati d/o Hukmi W/o Mukhtiar Singh
11. Manbhari widow of Hukam Singh
12. Smt. Savitri d/o Hukam Singh W/o Indraj together 1/6th share (all in equal shares)
13. Basanti mother of Ram Rattan 1/6th share"
36. In cross-examination this witness deposed that he would have filed objections against mutation in favour of Sh. Sumer Singh if he had come to know about it. He admitted that he was not in possession of land in question. He stated that he did not file any case against Sh. Sumer Singh as he was not having knowledge of mutation in his name.
37. Evidence on behalf of Recorded owners No. 1-3:- On behalf of recorded owners, Shri Vijay Singh entered witness box as PW-1 and deposed similar facts as were deposed by him in the claim petition. Following documents were proved and exhibited:-
(i) Exhibit IPW592/1: This is Khatoni for the year 1975-76 for land in Khasra No. 11//22/2 (3-0), 17//2 (4-6), 11//22/3 (0-15), 29// 6/2 (3-12) and 7/2(2-0) totaling 13 bigha 13 biswas in village Pochanpur. This Khatoni shows following mutations:-
Sl. Date of Case Khasra Area From To
No. order Number Number
1. 19.08.75 46/SO 11//22/3 (0-3) Sh. Sumer Singh Sh. Bhola
(C)/74 Nath son
of Sh.
Abhay
Ram
2. 19.06.81 535/80-81 Smt. Amriti, Smt. Sh. Sumer
Savitri and Smt. Singh son
Manbhari of Sh.
Hukum.
3. 19.06.81 570/80-81 Smt. Basanti mother Sh. Sumer
of Sh. Ram Rattan Singh
LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 9/18
4. 21.11.84 324/84-85 29//6/2, (3-12), Sh. Sumer Singh To Smt.
7/2 and (2-0) Santosh
180/2 and Devi wife
(0-2) of Sh.
Vijay Pal
Singh son
of Sh.
Sumer
Singh
5. 21.11.84 325/84-87 11/22/2 (3-0) Sh. Sumer Singh Smt.
and and Shyama
11//22/3 (0-15) Devi wife
of Sh.
Sumer
Singh
6. 29.11.2000 143/2000-01 11//22/2, (3-0), Smt. Shayma Devi Sh. Vijay
17//2 and (4-6) (deceased) wife of Singh, Sh.
11/22/3 and Sh. Sumer Singh Raj Singh,
(0-15) Sh. Jasraj
Singh all
sons of
Sh. Sumer
Singh
(ii) Exhibit IPW592/2: Relinquishment deed executed by Smt. Savitri,
Smt. Amriti and Smt. Manbhari in favour of Sh. Sumer Singh.
(iii) Exhibit IPW592/3: Sale deed executed by Sh. Sumer Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Shyamo Devi on 21.05.1984 for land measuring 8 Bighas 1 Biswas bearing Khasra No. 11/22/2 (3-0), 17/2 (4-6) and 11/22/3 (0-15) situated in the area of village Pochanpur, Delhi.
(iv) Mark X:- Order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 19.08.1975. As per this order land in Khasra No. 11/22/3 (0-3) was given to Sh. Bhola Ram son of Sh. Abhay Ram by Sh. Sumer Singh etc.
38. The objectors also filed certified copy of order dated 08.08.2011 passed by SDM / RA (Vasant Vihar) who directed implementation of order dated 31.08.71 passed by SDM / RA in respect of Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) of village LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 10/18 Pochanpur. However, in concluding remarks SDM/ RA also noted that "It is also clarified that this order will not have anything to do with issue of possession of the land of the parties". This order is passed by SDM /RA after 9 years of acquisition of land in question.
39. Arguments were addressed by Sh. S.P. Mehta, learned counsel for objector No. 1 Sh. Rohtash Singh, Sh. Kanwar Udai Bhan Singh Sehrawat, learned counsel for objector No. 2 Sh. Rajpal Singh and Sh. R.P. Parashar, learned counsel for recorded owner No. 1, 2 and 3. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of counsel for objector No. 1 as well as for recorded owner No. 1, 2 and 3.
40. In written arguments of objector No. 1 it is stated that the recorded owners have intentionally concealed the fact of ownership of share of objectors in the acquired land. It is stated that during the period of chakbandi, the land jointly owned by the predecessors of the objectors was included in the name of predecessors of recorded owners which fact was challenged by predecessors of objectors under Section 11 of DLR Act before RA vide case No. 659/RA which was decided vide order dated 31.08.71 holding that the names of predecessors of the objectors shall be added in the land bearing Khasra No. 1/12 (15-4) and 1/49 (2-8).
41. It is stated that the value of total land of Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) during chakbandi was included in the share of Sh. Sumer Singh which has been confirmed by the office of SDM as per revenue record vide its report date 31.12.98 exhibited as Ex.OP1/A. Objectors have referred to report of Patwari dated 13.07.99 to the effect that the value of Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) which was share of objectors and his brothers was included in the share of Sh. Sumer Singh during consolidation vide report exhibited as Ex.OP1/B.
42. It is stated that the objectors vide their application before the Consolidation Officer in the month of October 1997 had applied for consolidation vide their application exhibit OP1/C. During pendency of said application, Exhibit OP-1/D was passed. The application of objector was dismissed by SDM/RA vide orders dated 18.04.2001 which order was set aside by D.C. Kapashera on LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 11/18 31.01.2002 and SDM/RA vide orders dated 09.08.2011 has directed implementation of order dated 31.08.71. Therefore, objector No. 1 prayed that 1/3rd of compensation be given to him and his brothers and 1/12 th of compensation be given to Sh. Bhoop Singh.
43. No judgment was cited on behalf of this IP.
44. On the other hand, arguments of recorded owners are that they and before them their forefathers were in possession of the land in question. Objectors were never in possession of land in question. Objectors never filed any objection to mutation of land in question in favour of Shayamo Devi and thereafter in favour of present recorded owners and now objectors cannot raise objections against release of compensation in their favour.
45. Issue-wise findings of this court are as under:-
Exhibit OP2/A is the order dated 31.08.71 passed by SDM/RA in an application under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act which was filed by persons named in para 35 of this order including father of present recorded owner Shri Sumer Singh. Their grievance was that they were in possession of land in Khasra No. 1/12 (15-04) and 1/49 (2-8) but applicants as well as respondents in order dated 31.08.71 were shown as recorded owner of land in Khasra No. 1/12 (15-04) and for land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) only Sh. Hukumi, father of Sh. Sumer Singh and Smt. Basanti were shown as bhumidars. Vide order dated 31.08.71, two directions were passed (i) names of respondents in the said application were expunged from Khasra No. 1/12 (15-04) and (ii) shares of applicants as shown in para 36 of this order were directed to be recorded in the revenue records over Khasra No. 1/12 and 1/49.
46. This order was partially implemented and names of respondents in order dated 31.08.71 were expunged from land in Khasra No. 1/12 (15-04). This is mentioned in order dated 23.01.2002 passed by District Collector which is Ex.OP1/E. But land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) remained in bhumidari of Shri Hukumi and Smt. Basanti. This bhumidari of Sh. Hukumi and Smt. Basanti over land in LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 12/18 Khasra No. 1/49 (2-08) remained unchallenged from 1971 till 1997. Admittedly, being the recorded owner of land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-08), after consolidation which had commenced on 11.04.70 and closed on 03.05.71, land equal to value of land of Sh. Sumer Singh and Smt. Basanti including land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-08) was allotted to them. This land was in Khasra No. 11//22/2 (3-0), 17//2 (4-6), 11//22/3 (0-15), 29//6/2 (3-12), 29//7/2 (2-0) and 180/2 (0-2) totaling measuring 13 bigha 15 biswas.
47. As per Mark X which is order of Settlement Officer ( Consolidation) passed on 19.08.75, land in Khasra No. 11/22/3 (0-3) was given out of share of Sh. Sumer Singh to Shri Bhola Ram son of Shri. Abhay Ram. Order dated 19.08.75 is an admitted document by objectors.
48. Objections of objectors are only against Shri Sumer Singh and not against Sh. Bhola Ram. Objectors have not challenged order dated 19.08.75 at any stage. Therefore, it is held that recorded owner No. 4 Sh. Bhola is entitled to receive compensation for land in Khasra No. 11//22/3 (0-3).
49. So far as remaining land allotted to Sh. Sumer Singh and Smt. Basanti after consolidation is concerned, share of Smt. Basanti was mutated in the name of Shri Sumer Singh on 19.06.1981 vide mutation No. 570/80-81. Objectors did not raise any objection at that time. On the same date, Smt. Amriti, Smt. Savitri and Smt. Manbhari all daughters of Shri Hukumi relinquished their share in favour of Sh. Sumer Singh and their shares were mutated in favour of Shri Sumer Singh vide mutation No. 535/1980-81. The objectors did not raise any objection to this mutation.
50. On 21.11.84, vide mutation No. 324/84-85 land in Khasra No. 29//6/2 (3-12), 7/2 (2-0) and 180/2 (0-2) was mutated in favour of Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Sh. Vijay Pal Singh who is recorded owner No. 3 on the basis of sale deed executed by Shri Sumer Singh. The objectors did not object to this mutation.
51. On 21.11.84, land in Khasra No. 11/22/2 (3-0) and 11//22/3 (0-15) was mutated in the name of Smt. Shyama Devi wife of Shri Sumer Singh vide mutation LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 13/18 No. 325/84-87. The objectors did not raise any objection to this mutation.
52. At this stage, Sh. Sumer Singh was not left with any land in his name which he may have inherited from Sh. Hukumi his father in lieu of value of land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8).
53. On the death of Smt. Shayama, the land in her favour was mutated in the names of recorded owners No. 1-3 vide mutation No. 143/2000-2001 dated 29.11.2000. Objectors again did not raise any objection against this mutation.
54. It is an admitted fact that the recorded owners and before them their predecessors had remained in possession of land in question since 03.05.71.
55. In cross-examination, objector No. 1 Shri Rohtas Singh stated that his predecessors must have been allotted land equivalent to their land prior to consolidation. He has further stated that Sh. Sumer Singh, the father of present recorded owners was allotted land after consolidation as per his entitlement and equivalent to sum of total of value of his land before consolidation. If predecessors of objector No. 1 and father of present recorded owners were given land after consolidation as per their entitlement then there would be no case in favour of objectors.
56. Both the objectors have admitted that land in question had remained in possession of recorded owners and objectors were never in possession over land in question.
57. After 26 years of passing of order dated 31.08.1971, the objectors filed an application on 18.10.1997 before Consolidation Officer / Tehsildar for recording entry over land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) in the revenue records in compliance of order dated 31.08.1971.
58. The said application was rejected by the SDM/ RA vide orders dated 18.04.2001 holding that the application is filed belatedly.
59. On the appeal of objectors before the District Collector (South-West) the order of SDM /RA was set aside on 23.01.2002. The matter was remanded back before SDM /RA to decide the matter after examining the date of completion of LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 14/18 consolidation proceeding.
60. The District Collector set aside the order of SDM/ RA for the reason that the entry in the records of rights do not confer the title in themselves. It was further held that the order of revenue court in so far as it relates to brining the entries in conformity with the order can be implemented anytime as per Rule 178 Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962.
61. There is no dispute with the reasoning given by District Collector. However, where the bhumidar was in possession and his rights over land in question were not threatened only in such cases wrong recording of entry in record of rights against him will not confer any title in the favour of person in whose name such wrong entry is recorded. Such an entry can be corrected within a period of three years when the cause of action arises or when rights of such a bhumidar are threatened over property in question.
62. However, a party who is not in possession of land in question and in whose favour cause of action had arisen more than three years ago cannot get the wrong entry in records of rights corrected at any time at his sweet will.
63. Even the District Collector has held in his order dated 23.01.02 that "It is clarified that this order will not have anything to do with issue of possession of the land of the parties".
64. It is an admitted case that recorded owners and before them their predecessors were in possession over land in question. Order dated 31.08.1971 was partially implemented when names of respondents in order dated 31.08.1971 were expunged over land in Khasra No. 1/12 (15-04). The cause of action had arisen in favour of objectors when their names were not recorded with regard to land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8) or over land allotted to Sh. Sumer Singh after consolidation equal to value of land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8).
65. The cause of action had also arisen on 19.08.75 when land in Khasra No. 11//22/3 (0-3) was mutated from the name of Sh. Sumer Singh to the name of Sh. Bhola Nath who is recorded owner No. 4. The cause of action had also arisen LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 15/18 on 19.06.81 when the share of Smt. Basanti was transferred in the name of Sh. Sumer Singh. The cause of action had also arisen on 19.06.81 when Smt. Amriti, Smt. Savitri and Smt. Manhari relinquished their share in favour of Sh. Sumer Singh over land in question. The cause of action had also arisen on 21.11.84 when Sh. Sumer Singh sold land in Khasra No. 11/22/2 (3-0) and 11//22/3 (0-15) in favour of Smt. Shyama Devi, his wife and when said land was mutated in favour of Smt. Shyama Devi. The cause of action had also arisen on 21.11.84 when Sh. Sumer Singh sold land in Khasra No. 29//6/2 (3-12), 7/2 (2-0) and 180/2 (0-2) to Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Sh. Vijay Pal Singh son of Sh. Sumer Singh and when this land was mutated in favour of Smt. Santosh Devi.
66. However, the objectors never raised any objection at the time when cause of action arose in their favour on different occasions noted above.
67. Under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 a person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Law for the time being in force is liable to ejectment on the suit of bhumidar and is also liable to pay damages.
68. As per Section 85 of the DLR Act, 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 filing of the suit or execution of the decree the person taking or retaining possession becomes a bhumidar over land in question.
69. As per Schedule 1 of DLR Act, period of limitation for a suit under Section 84 of DLR Act is three years from the 1st of July following the date of occupation.
70. In this case recorded owners through their predecessors were in possession over land in question since 03.05.1971. The rights of objectors over land in question were extinguished on 03.05.1974 because no steps were taken by objectors for implementation of order dated 31.08.1971. Even if cause of action is considered from 31.08.1971 even then the period of limitation expired on 31.08.1974.
LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 16/1871. Reliance cannot be made upon Rule 178 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 for implementing the order of SDM / RA dated 31.08.1971 in the year 1997 and to submit that there is no period of limitation for correction of records of rights even when the applicant seeking correction in records of rights was not in possession for more than 26 years and had not taken timely steps when the cause of action had arisen in his favour.
72. Rule 178 is in Chapter 12 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 with the heading CASES - CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN ANNUAL REGISTER. Rule 173 refers to Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 as per which Deputy Commissioner may correct mistake or error in the annual register on his own motion or on the application of any person. Rule 173 provides that Revenue Assistant or the Tehsildar shall entertain applications for the recording of transfer and changes under Section 26. Under Rule 177 if in an inquiry made under Rule 176 it appears that the Patwari has recorded the facts of possession incorrectly the Inquiring Officer shall record a definite finding as to culpability of Patwari and submit it for orders to the Deputy Commissioner through the Revenue Assistant. It is in such type of cases in which the effect of order requires change in the Patwari's records, the court shall draw up a separate order, giving full details of the entries to be made and entries to be expunged and shall send it to Tehsildar for amendment.
73. The facts of this case do not justify applicability of Rule 178.
74. In the case of 'Sanjay versus Financial Commissioner, Delhi & Ors', 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 517 the consolidation proceedings had concluded in the year 2003-04. In the year 2008 the petitioner applied for making good deficiency in allotment. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application of petitioner as he had become functus officio after conclusion of consolidation proceedings. The revision filed before the Financial Commissioner under Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was dismissed as the petitioner was found sleeping over his rights and was not allowed to raise objections which could disturb the scheme of allotment which LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 17/18 had come to be settled with the passage of time. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the writ petition of petitioner which was filed against order of Financial Commissioner holding that there was absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the long delay after which the deficiency was claimed. It was held that in the interregnum the matters attained finality and cannot be got reopened as otherwise there would be never any finality pursuant to consolidation proceedings and people would desist from dealing with land / properties subject matter of consolidation proceedings.
75. In this case also the rights of objectors over land in question were determined in the year 1971. The said order dated 31.08.1971 was partly implemented with regard to land in Khasra No. 1/12 (15-0) but objectors never took any steps for its implementation for land in Khasra No. 1/49 (2-8). The recorded owners are in possession since 1971 and their rights over land in question cannot be challenged after twenty six years of their admitted and undisturbed possession. The objectors did not take any action to assert their rights when cause of action had arisen in their favour.
76. Resultantly, the reference is answered and it is held that it is the recorded owners who are entitled to receive the compensation. Let a copy of this order be sent to LAC (South-West) and file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on the 22nd day of December, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No. 17/11/04 Page 18/18