SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 20.09.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8157/2024 and CM APPLs.33507/2024, 33508/2024
SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8181/2024 and CM APPLs.33576/2024, 33577/2024
SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8203/2024 and CM APPLs.33615/2024, 33616/2024
SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8213/2024 and CM APPLs.33662/2024, 33663/2024
SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8329/2024 and CM APPLs.34103/2024, 34104/2024
SMT. SUSHILA GOEL & ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioners : Mr.Raghubir Singh Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC along with
Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Ms.Musarrat Benazeer Hasmi, Advocates for LAC/R1.
Mr. Avtaar Singh Deol, Sr. Panel Counsel along with Ms. Niyati Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr.Ravi Kant Srivastava, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Sr. PC and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning separate orders dated 15.11.2019, whereby their respective applications for seeking reference under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter LA Act) to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, West Delhi, were rejected. The petitioners had filed the said applications in respect of lands comprising in Khasra/Plot Nos.1009 (2-0) and 1010 (3-2) situated in the Revenue Estate of Mundka, Delhi (hereafter also referred to as the subject land). The subject land was acquired in terms of an award under the LA Act, being Award no.2/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009.
2. The parties in the present batch of petitions are the same, except respondent no.3. The petitioners have arrayed five individuals as respondent no.3 in the respective petitions.
3. The material facts as obtaining in these petitions are the same. However, there are five different claimants of rights in respect of the subject land or part thereof. They are respectively arrayed as respondent no.3 in these petitions. The orders impugned in these petitions are in similar terms. The learned counsel for the parties also concurs that the decision in any one of the above petitions would be dispositive of the other petitions as well, as the controversy involved is common.
4. In view of the above, for consideration of these batch of petitions, W.P.(C) 8157/2024 captioned Smt. Sushila Goel and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., is taken up as the lead matter. The reference to the facts as noted, unless the context indicates otherwise, are the facts as obtaining in the said petition.
5. The petitioners impugn the orders dated 15.11.2019 passed by respondent no.1 (Land Acquisition Collector – hereafter referred to as LAC) in Case No. LAC(W)/2019/830-839 captioned Sushila Goel and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (hereafter the impugned order). As noted above, the learned LAC had rejected the petitioners representation/claim for making reference under Sections 30-31 of the LA Act in respect of the subject land. The petitioners also pray that directions be issued to the LAC to decide their claim afresh and make a reference in respect of the subject land.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
6. Petitioners state that they acquired agricultural land comprising in Khasra No.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka from Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh (hereafter also referred to as the Sellers), who were sons of Sh. Deep Chand and residents of Village Mundka, Delhi, by registered Sale Deeds dated 24.12.1985. The details of the land purchased by petitioners and their predecessors are as under:
Sr. No.
Purchaser
Land bearing no.
Area
Consideration (in ?)
1
Petitioner no.1 and 2
Khasra No.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min
2 bighas
30,000/-
2.
Petitioner no.3 along with Smt. Veena Goel
Khasra No.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min
2 bighas 1 biswas
30,000/-
3.
Petitioner no.4
Khasra no.67/10 Min
1 bigha 1 biswas
20,000/-
7. The petitioners claim that the aggregate land measuring 5 bighas and 2 biswas in Khasra No.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min were handed over to the petitioners/purchasers.
8. It is stated that at the time of purchase of the subject land, the lands in village holding were the subject matter of the consolidation proceedings and a Consolidation Scheme dated 27.05.1976 was framed and confirmed by the Consolidation Authority.
9. The petitioners claim that by an order dated 15.06.1988, the Consolidation Scheme was amended and the land in question purchased by the petitioners (land measuring 5 bighas and 2 biswas in Khasra no.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min) was included in the newly extended Phirni/Lal Dora of village Mundka. The said land was converted into residential land for further allotment to the right holders/bhumidars of the village. By virtue of the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer (Mundka), the said lands comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min were withdrawn from the Sellers, who at that time were the recorded owners of the subject property. And, the residential Plots bearing no.1009 (2-0) and 1010 (3-2) [the subject land] were carved out and earmarked on the land comprised in Khasra Nos.67/9 min and 67/10 min.
10. The said plots were then allotted to separate allottees. The petitioners state that Plot no.1010 (6-04) was allotted to Om Parkash and Plot no.1009 (7-13) was allotted to Sh. Hari Kishan.
11. The petitioners state that the Sellers were allotted agricultural land measuring 39 bighas and 1 biswas [bearing Khasra No. 6/24/3 (1-03), 19/2/1 (0-16), 3/1 (0-16), 4/1/1 (0-13), 6/22/2 (1-06), 23/3 (1-06), 12/15 (2-06), 131/14/2 (0-16), 17 (4-16), 18 Min East (0-19), 134/15(5- 13), 16 (5-02), 17 (1-12), 1031 (4-00), 1034 (4-04) and 21/12 Min East (1-08)] in the consolidation proceedings in lieu of their recorded rights.
12. Since the lands purchased by the petitioners from the Sellers were not mutated in their name in the Revenue records, the allotment of the subject land (in terms of the order dated 24.07.1989 of the Consolidation Officer) in lieu of the land purchased by the petitioners was not in their favour but in favour of the Sellers. Thus, notwithstanding that the Sellers had sold the land in favour of the petitioners and were left with no right, title or interest in the land comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min (pre consolidation), they were allotted agricultural land in lieu of the said land.
13. The lands comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min, which in the consolidation proceedings were carved into Plot nos. 1009 and 1010 (subject land) in terms of the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer, were allotted to other right holders as under:
(i) Plot no.1009 (7-13) was allotted to Hari Kishan (Haqdar No.587);
(ii) Plot No. 1010 (6-04) was allotted to Om Parkash (Haqdar No.33).
14. The petitioners claim that notwithstanding that the subject land numbered as Plot Nos. 1009 and 1010 was allotted to other persons as noted above, they continued to be in possession of the same.
15. The said allottees further sold their rights in respect of the said property to third parties. It is stated that Sh. Om Parkash allottee of Plot No.1010 had executed a Sale Deed dated 06.10.1989 in favour of Narender Kumar son of Sh. Chhotey Lal, who in turn executed a Sale Deed dated 27.02.2006 in respect of Plot No.1010 (1-0) in favour of Sh. Virender Kumar. Further, Plot no.1010 (1-02) is stated to have been sold by the Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Om Parkash to Sh. Jai Kishan son of Sh. Chhotey Lal in terms of a Sale Deed dated 30.12.2005.
16. One Smt. Amita Gupta wife of Sh. Sunil Kumar also claims to have purchased Plot No.1010 (1-01) by a Sale Deed dated 27.02.2006 from Sh. Prem Singh son of Sh. Amir Singh, who in turn had purchased the same from Sh. Om Parkash and other persons by a Sale Deed dated 06.10.1989 (Haqdar no.33).
17. Two individuals, Sh. Ajay Kumar and Sh. Arun Kumar, claim to have purchased Plot no.1009 Min from the allottee, Sh. Hari Kishan.
18. In the present batch of petitions, the said persons, who claim to have acquired the subject land (Plot nos.1009 and 1010) from the persons who were allotted the said land in terms of the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer are arrayed as respondent no. 3 respectively.
19. The lands allotted to the Sellers [lands comprising in Khasra No.6/24/3, 19/2/01, 3/1 (0-16), 4/1/1 (0-13), 6/22/2 (1-06), 23/3 (1-06), 12/15 (2-06), 131/14/2 (0-16), 17 (4-16), 18 Min East (0-19), 134/15 (5-13), 16 (5-02), 17 (1-12), 1031 (4-00), 1034 (4-04) and 21/12 Min East (1-08)] were acquired in terms of an award [Award no.03/DC(W)/2005-2006 dated 27.01.2006] made under the LA Act. The Sellers being the recorded owners of the said land, which was allotted to them under the consolidation proceedings in view of the Original holding (in Khasra No.67/9 min and 67/10 min) that was sold to the petitioners in terms of the Sale Deeds dated 24.12.1985, claimed compensation for the same.
20. Since the petitioners would have been entitled to the allotment of the said land, post consolidation, the petitioners caused a reference to be made to the learned District Judge under Section 30-31 of the LA Act. The said proceedings (LAC-31-A/10/07 New no.28/16 captioned Union of India v. Sh. Raghbir Singh and Ors.) was concluded in favour of the petitioners by a judgment dated 19.08.2017. The petitioners were found to be interested in the said land and their claim to compensation for the same, was accepted.
21. As noted at the outset, the subject land was also acquired under the LA Act in terms of the Award no.2/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009.
22. The petitioners claim that they were interested in the agricultural land that was repatriated to the Sellers in lieu of the land comprising in Khasra No.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min pursuant to the consolidation proceedings. These lands were allotted to the Sellers as the land comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min had not been mutated in the name of the petitioners.
23. The petitioners applied for the reference under Sections 30-31 of the LA Act to be made in respect of the Award No.2/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009. The LAC accepted the said application and made a reference to the learned District Judge. The said reference (LAC No.31A/10/07 New No.28/2016 captioned Union of India v. Raghbir Singh & Others) was allowed in favour of the petitioners by the order dated 19.08.2017.
24. The petitioners state that while the said reference was pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, the petitioners also noticed that the references under Section 18 of the LA Act for enhancement of the compensation in respect of the subject land were also listed. The petitioners became aware that claimants arrayed as respondent no.3 respectively in these petitions had filed separate reference for enhancement of the compensation in respect of their rights in the Plot nos.1009 and 1010.
25. The details of the references made by the aforesaid five claimants arrayed as respondent no.3 in these petitions are:-
(i) Reference No. F.No.13(55)/LAC(W)/6435 dated 08.07.2010 and Reference No.LAC(W)/Ref./ 2011/8246-47 dated 23.05.2011 in respect of Plot No.1010 Min (1-0) in favour of Sh. Virender Kumar U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(ii) Reference No. F.No.13 (_)/LAC(W) Ref.2011/ 8477-78 dated 02.07.2011 in respect of Plot No.1010 Min (1-2) in favour of Sh. Jai Kishan Gupta U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iii) Reference No. F.No.13(28)/LAC(W) Ref.2011/8479-80 dated 02.07.2011 in respect of Plot No.1010 Min (1-0) in favour of Ms. Amita Gupta U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iv) Reference No. F.No.13(31)/LAC(W)/6423 dated 08.07.2010 Reference No.LAC(W)/Ref. /2011/8450-51 dated 23.05.2011 in respect of Plot No.1009 Min (1-0) in favour of Sh. Ajay Kumar U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(v) Reference No. F.No.13(33)/LAC(W)/6425 dated 08.07.2010 in respect of Plot No.1009 Min (1-0) in favour of Sh. Arun Kumar U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
26. The petitioners filed an application dated 29.04.2014 for being impleaded in the said references as interested parties, however, the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge by an order dated 27.11.2015.
27. The petitioners filed an objection / claim before the LAC and sought that the reference of the same be made under Sections 30-31 of the LA Act to the learned District Judge. However, no action is taken by the LAC in regard to their claim.
28. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.11870/2018, W.P.(C) No.11872/2018, W.P.(C) No.11874/2018, W.P.(C) No.11889/2018, W.P.(C) No.11992/2018 before this Court. The said petitions were disposed of by the common order dated 15.04.2019, whereby the LAC was directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioners.
29. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the LAC considered the objection/claims of the petitioners and rejected the same in terms of the impugned orders. The LAC declined to make a reference under Sections 30-31 of the LA Act on the ground that the petitioners had succeeded in their claim for compensation for the land allotted pursuant to the consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land comprising in Khasra Nos.69/9 Min and 69/10 Min. They cannot claim compensation in respect of the subject land. The claim of the petitioners that they had acquired the subject land from the allottees post consolidation was also not accepted, as there was no material or evidence to support the same.
30. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions.
31. The petitioners have also premised their claim in respect of the subject land on the ground that they had challenged the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer, whereby Plot nos.1009 and 1010 were carved out on the land purchased by the petitioners comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 Min and 67/10 Min and were allotted to different persons.
32. In the aforesaid view, it would be relevant to note the different proceedings initiated by the petitioners and other persons in respect of the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
33. As noted above, the Consolidation Scheme under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereafter the EPH Act) in respect of the Mundka Village was conducted in July, 1976. It is stated that the lands comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 and 67/10 were allotted to the Sellers by virtue of the Resolution No.25 dated 29.11.1985 in the repartition proceedings under the EPH Act. The Consolidation Scheme was subsequently amended on 20.05.1988, whereby the aforementioned land allocated to the Sellers pursuant to the Resolution No.25 dated 29.11.1985 was included in the newly extended Lal Dora. The amended Consolidation Scheme was thereafter confirmed on 26.08.1988.
34. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.07.1989, whereby three residential Plot Nos.1009, 1010 and 1011 were carved from the lands comprising in Khasra Nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10. As stated above, the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 67/9 and 67/10 was acquired by the petitioners in terms of the sale deed dated 24.12.1985 and Plot Nos.1009 and 1010 were carved out from the subject land. The subject land was thereafter allotted to different persons as noted above.
35. On 26.09.1989, the Sellers filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the EPH Act being Revision Petition No.215/89-CA captioned Surjan Singh & Ors. v. Settlement Officer(C) & Anr., impugning the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988. Another Revision Petition was also filed being Revision Petition No.216/89-CA captioned Shri Hari Singh & Another v. Settlement Officer (C) & Another, impugning the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988.
36. By an order dated 31.10.1989, the learned Financial Commissioner allowed the said Revision Petitions (Revision Petition No.215/89-CA and Revision Petition No.216/89-CA) and set aside the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988. The Financial commissioner remanded the matter to the concerned Settlement Officer (C) to take steps after following the proper procedure.
37. The petitioners state that they as well as the Sellers on 24.12.1989, filed another Revision Petition No.252/89-CA impugning an order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.1989 stayed the operation of the order dated 24.07.1989 till the disposal of the revision petition. The petitioners state that in terms of the said order, the allotment of Plot nos.1009, 1010 and 1011 were stayed. By a subsequent order dated 19.03.1990 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition No.252/89-CA, the petitions were adjourned sine die as the amendment to the Consolidation Scheme was also the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
38. The order dated 31.10.1989 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner setting aside the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer was challenged in five separate writ petitions by the persons who had been allotted the plots in the extended Lal Dora by virtue of the amended Consolidation Scheme. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said petitions by an order dated 24.03.1992 and quashed the order dated 31.10.1989 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. This Court remanded the matter to the learned Financial Commissioner for deciding afresh after giving notices to interested parties and affording them an opportunity to be heard.
39. The case pursuant to the remand was registered as Case No.58/1992 before the learned Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner accepted the amended consolidation scheme and approved the same. Thus, the revision petition filed by the persons including the petitioners challenging the amended Consolidation Scheme, was rejected.
40. The Sellers challenged the order dated 29.10.1992 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner approving the amended Consolidation Sheme in Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.348/1993 filed on 11.01.1993. The learned Financial Commissioners order dated 19.03.1990 adjourning the petitions including the Revision Petition No.252/89-CA sine die on the ground that the Writ Petition was pending before this Court was also subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.5815/2000. The aforesaid petitions [W.P.(C) 348/1993 and W.P.(C) 5815/2000] were disposed of by a common order dated 02.07.2007. Whilst W.P.(C) No.348/1993 challenging the learned Financial Commissioners order to approve the amended Consolidation Scheme was rejected, the petition (W.P.(C) 5815/2000) preferred against the order of the learned Financial Commissioner adjourning three revision petitions filed under Section 42 of the EPH Act including the Revision Petition No.252/89-CA, was allowed and this Court directed the learned Financial Commissioner to hear the said revision petitions on merit.
41. In the meanwhile, the subject land was acquired and the award dated 01.01.2009 was made under the LA Act. In the circumstances, the learned Financial Commissioner passed the order dated 30.04.2009 holding that the objection under Section 42 of the EPH Act had become infructuous due to acquisition of the land and, accordingly, dismissed the said revision petitions.
REASONS & CONCLUSIONS
42. The principal question to be addressed is whether the petitioners have any right, title or interest in the subject land which would warrant making a reference to the learned District Judge under Section 30-31 of the LA Act.
43. The petitioners assail the impugned orders primarily on three grounds. First, they claim that the Settlement Officer/Consolidation Officer, could not have allotted plots No.1009 and 1010 to other persons. They contend that the subject land was built up and therefore, the decision to allot to some other person is erroneous. Second, the petitioners claim that they continued to be in possession of the subject land notwithstanding that the same was allotted to other persons in terms of the order dated 24.07.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer. And, third, they state that persons arrayed as respondent no.3 in these petitions claim to have acquired part of the subject land by sale deeds dated 06.10.1989, which are illegal as at the material time, the allotment in favour of the original allottees in terms of the order dated 24.07.1989, was not final.
44. During the course of the proceedings, it was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had acquired the land from the successor in interest of the persons who were allotted the subject land.
45. We find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There is no dispute that the petitioners claim rights to compensation in respect of the subject land, on the basis of the sale deeds dated 24.12.1985, whereby the Sellers had sold the land comprising in Khasra No.67/9 Min (67/9) Min (2-0) Min, 67/10 Min (2-1), and 67/10 Min (1-1) admeasuring 5 bighas and 2 biswas to the petitioners. There is no dispute that in terms of the amended Consolidation Scheme, the land purchased by the petitioners was included in the newly extended Lal Dora of village Mundka and the residential Plots (No.1009 and 1010) were carved out from the same. These plots were allotted to other persons a noted above. In lieu of the same, the Sellers who at the material time were the recorded owners of the land admeasuring 5 bighas and 2 biswas comprising in Khasra No.67/9 Min (67/9) Min (2-0)Min, 67/10 Min(2-1), and 67/10 Min (1-1), which they had sold to the petitioners, were allotted the agricultural land comprising in Khasra No. 6/24/3 (1-03), 19/2/1(0-16), 3/1 (0-16), 4/1/1 (0-13), 6/22/2 (1-06), 23/3 (1-06), 12/15 (2-06), 131/14/2 (0-16), 17 (4-16), 18 Min East (0-19), 134/15(5- 13), 16 (5-02), 17 (1-12), 1031 (4-00), 1034 (4-04) and 21/12 Min East (1-08).
46. As noted above, these lands, which were allotted to the Sellers were the subject matter of acquisition under the LA Act in terms of the Award dated 01.01.1990. The petitioners claimed compensation for acquisition of these lands. Their claim was premised on the basis that they were entitled to the said lands, which were allotted in lieu of the land acquired by them pursuant to the sale deed dated 24.12.1985. Reference regarding the claim was made under Section 30-31 of the LA Act which was accepted by the learned District Judge by an order dated 19.08.2017. The petitioners were arrayed as interested parties no.7 to 11 in those proceedings.
47. It is material to note the case set up by the petitioners in the said proceedings (Case No. LAC/31A/10/07, New No.28/2016 captioned Union of India v. Shri Raghbir Singh & Ors.) before the learned District Judge. The same as noted in judgment dated 19.08.2017, is reproduced below: –
30. IP Nos. 8 to 11, namely, Smt. Veena Goel, Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, Smt. Sushila Goel and Sh.Brij Mohan Goel flied their claim. It is stated that the claimants/ IPs had purchased the land comprising 2 bigha 1 biswa each in Killa No. 67/9 and 67/10 min in Village Mundka vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.1985 bearing registration no.10906, 10908, 10910, from the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghubir Singh. Necessary permission obtained by the vendor and vendee in respect of the above mentioned land vide NOC No. 15417-18 dated 05.12.1985 and 573075 dated 02.12.1985. The entry of the same also exists in the sale deed. The land was purchased with the prior permission of the Consolidation Officer of Village Mundka, Delhi. The said land was purchased by the claimants as per the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.06.1988 and as per amended consolidation scheme. The mentioned in the revenue record in the name of the then recorded owner Sh. Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh included in extended phirni/ Lal dora by the concerned department vide order dated 15.06.1988 but the actually the present IPs/ claimants were the actual owner of the land because the recorded owner sold out his land to the present claimants.
31. It is stated that as per the amended draft scheme of consolidation and as per the order dated. 24.07.1989 the above mentioned land of the then recorded owner Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh was included in the extended abadi and the Khasra Nos. 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 3/1, 4/1/1, 6,22/2, 23/3, 12/15, 131/14/2, 17, 18, 131/15, 16, 17, 1031, 1034, 21/2 min was allotted to the then recorded owner in lieu of the land which is included in the extended abadi of Village Mundka. The present IPs purchased the land with a consideration amount and the original recorded owner of the land were allotted other alternative land and new Khasra number was allotted to the then recorded owner. It is stated that against the order of Consolidation Officer, the present claimants filed Revision petition before Financial Commissioner and against the order of F.C. filed Writ Petition No. 348/93, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
32. It is stated that since the dispute has arisen about the amendment in the consolidation scheme and extension of firny/Lal Dora the name of the present claimants were not allotted/mutated in the Revenue Records, however, they have become the owners/ bhumidhars by virtue of the sale deed. Claimants seek that compensation of the land be released to them as per their shares.
33. LRs of IP No.1, namely, Sh. Siri Krishan, Sh.Jeet Singh, Sh.Abhimanyu and Sh.Ravinder filed reply to the claim of IP Nos. 8 to 11. In the reply they denied the averments made in the claim as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the alleged claimants are neither the bhumidhars nor in possession of the aforesaid land. The claimants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the acquired land and the IP No.1 and his sons are entitled to receive the entire compensation to the extent of ½ share of the acquired land being the bhumidhar in possession of the same. It is stated that as per the own admission of the disputants, the land was allotted during the consolidation proceedings in the year 1988 and the IP No.1 and his sons were in the actual physical possession till the date of acquisition. The LAC took the possession of the land from the IP No.1. No other person except the answering IPs had any right, title or interest in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6/22/2, 6/23/3, 6/24/3, 19/2/1, 19/3/1/1, 19/4/1/1, 21//12’12 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is stated that the alleged sale deed, if any, is null and void, unenforceable and no sanctity in the eyes of law. The land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Land Revenue Act and the Consolidation Act.
48. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were stuck by the learned District Judge. The first issue being: Which of the Interested Parties is entitled to compensation amount and to what an extent?
49. After evaluating the evidence, the learned District Judge concluded in favour of the petitioners. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: –
84.The details of the Consolidation proceedings have been highlighted in the written arguments by IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. The consolidation scheme has been amended. There is no dispute in this regard and an order has been passed dated 24.07.1989 Ex. IP8-11Wl/13 by the Consolidation Officer, wherein the Lal Dora/Phirni has been extended including the land of Khasra nos. 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10, which were sold by Sh. Raghblr Singh and Sh. Surjan Singh to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11. As per procedure, the land in the newly extended Lal Dora as per amended scheme have been allotted of various Khasra numbers as per order dated 29.11.1985. The order highlights the inclusion of lands in double area at Sl. No.49 against the name of Sh.Surjan Singh Singh and Khasra numbers are matching with the referred reference Khasra numbers.
85. The order dated 24.07.1989 further establish that after withdrawal of land of Sh.Surjan Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh, one plot no. 1011 (8-2) was alloted to Sh. Krishan Kumar at Sl. No. 46 and additional land was also allotted of the Khasras in dispute. The IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 further proved the litigation filed by IP Nos. 1 to 4 vide Revision petition no. 215/89 against the amended Consolidation Scheme dated 20.05.1988 and 15.06.1988 along with IP Nos. 8 to 11. In the Revision petition, all the averments admitted with regard to sale purchase of the acquired land in dispute by IP Nos. 1 to 4. The amended consolidation scheme dated 15.06.1988 has been approved by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.10.1992. It is established and proved on record that IP Nos. 1 to 4 had legally sold the Khasra numbers 67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 to IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 vide registered sale deeds and never challenged. The amended consolidation scheme has been approved, by which the land in dispute was allotted and later on acquired vide award no.03/DC (W)/2005-06. The IP Nos. 1 to 4 have failed to prove any revenue record or any other record to establish their ownership and continuous possession after sale of the acquired land in dispute.
86. On the basis of above observation and discussion IP Nos. 1 to 4 failed to prove their claim and accordingly, not entitled for any compensation. On the other hand, IP Nos. 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 have proved their entitlement in respect of claim for the acquired land in question.
50. It is at once clear that the petitioners cannot claim compensation in respect of the acquisition of both parcels of land, one which they physically acquired from the Sellers (Khasra No.67/9 and 67/10 which post consolidation was carved in plot no.1009 and 1010) as well as the lands allotted in the consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land purchased by petitioners.
51. The impugned orders are passed on the aforesaid basis and we find no infirmity with the same. Plainly, after succeeding in their claim for compensation for the land allotted in lieu of the subject lands, the petitioners cannot claim compensation for the subject land.
52. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the value of the lands allotted in lieu of the subject land acquired by them are different. He submits that the value of the land comprising in Khasra No.67/9 and 67/10 is higher as the same was included in the Lal Dora of village Mundka. He also suggested that the petitioners would therefore, seek the value of the subject land and adjust the compensation received in respect of the land allotted in lieu of the subject land. However, we are unable to accept this contention. Once the petitioners have claimed compensation of the lands allotted to the Sellers in lieu of Khasra No.67/9 and 67/10, the petitioners cannot claim any right, title or interest in the land in comprising in Khasra No.67/9 and 67/10. The petitioners had claimed that they were interested parties in lands allotted in lieu of land comprising in Khasra Nos.67/9 and 67/10. This was premised on the basis that the said land belongs to them as having been allotted to them in lieu of the subject land acquired by them.
53. It is clearly impermissible for them to claim compensation in respect of both lands one that they had acquired and one that they were allotted in lieu of the land that was acquired. The petitioners claim of any interest in the lands allotted to the Sellers in lieu of the subject land is mutually destructive to their claim in respect of the subject land.
54. The petitioners in an oblique manner seek to agitate their grievance against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer carving out subject land (Plot nos.1009 and 1010) and allotting the agricultural land to the Sellers in lieu of the subject land. However, the amendment to the Consolidation Scheme has attained finality, which at this stage, cannot be reopened.
55. As noted above, the petitioners were parties to the revision petition being Revision Petition No.252/89-CA filed under Section 42 of the EPH Act, wherein a specific grievance was made regarding the allotment of built-up area out of Khasra No.67/2, 67/9 and 67/10 to the other parties. It was claimed that that the possession of the land allotted in the repartition proceedings pursuant to the Consolidation Scheme had become final and the settled possession cannot be disturbed.
56. As noted above, the said revision petition was allowed by the learned Financial Commissioner by an order dated 31.10.1989, however, the said order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the learned Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the learned Financial Commissioner passed the order dated 29.10.1992 rejected the revision petition (New No.58/1992) and had approved the amended Consolidation Scheme. The petition preferred by the Sellers against the order dated 29.10.1992 [W.P.(C) No.348/1993] was rejected by an order dated 02.07.2007 captioned Surjan Singh & Others v. Financial Commissioner & Others. The said decision has attained finality. The petitioners also cannot draw any benefit from another revision petition (Revision Petition No. 201/2007-CA) that was pending before the learned Financial Commissioner, as the same was subsequently dismissed as infructuous by an order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner.
57. Before concluding, it is also relevant to note that the learned Financial Commissioner in the order dated 29.10.1992 which is upheld by this Court in Surjan Singh & Others v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. (supra) while observing that use of the land during repartition under Section 21(1) of the EPH Act for purpose other than agriculture is strictly prohibited and therefore, the construction, if any, done by the right holder on the said land did not have the sanction of law and cannot be given any recognition.
58. In the given circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order(s).
59. The above petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2024
RK/M
W.P.(C) No.8157/2024 & Connected Page 2 of 2