PUSHPA DEVI Vs. SARTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the entire enhanced compensation in respect of land of the deceased Mange Ram acquired by the Collector's Award No. 1448/86- 87 and enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No.34/94.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts as pleaded in the plaint are that Sh. Mange Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff owned agricultural land in village Tikri Khurd, Delhi. About 75 bighas of his land was acquired by the Government of India in the year 1986-87 in respect of which Mange Ram was awarded compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. A reference for enhancement was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) and the compensation was enhanced by Mr. S.M. Aggarwal, learned Additional District Judge to the tune of Rs. 1,08,24,971.82. The said amount of compensation was apportioned equally between the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who are the widow and daughters of the deceased Mange Ram and the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 who are the heirs of Laxmi Chand pre-deceased son of Mange Ram. It is now alleged by the plaintiff that Shri Mange Ram had executed a Will dated 12th February, 1992 under which the plaintiff arid the defendant No. 5 who are the LRs of his pre- deceased son Laxmi Chand become entitled to the whole of the amount of the . enhanced compensation and no share was given to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the said Will. However, the said Will was concealed by the defendant No. 1. It is alleged that the plaintiff noticed the Will dated 12th February, 1992 by chance and hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants contended that the matter regarding enhancement/ apportionment of the compensation stands decided by the learned Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act and the suit based on the alleged Will dated 12th February, 1992 is not maintainable. It is alleged that the plaintiffs had filed an application on the basis of the Will dated 12th February, 1992 but the Court did not accept it and the plaintiffs did not file any appeal against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge so the present suit is not maintainable. Besides defendants have pleaded that the alleged Will dated 12th February, 1992 is a forged one. Mange Ram died on 13th February, 1992 in the hospital and in that condition he could not have executed a Will on 12th February, 1992.