HARI SINGH THR LRS Vs. GUGAN THR LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment of 9th December, 1993 apportions the compensation granted vide Award No.20/85-86, in respect of acquisition of 4 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra No.12/1 and 13/5 of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) in equal share between the first party i.e. the appellants and the second party, i.e. the respondents, in proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) APPELLANTS are the legal heirs of Interested Party No.1- Sube Singh son of Khema (henceforth referred to as I.P. No.1), who claim to be the recorded owner of the subject land whereas, Interested Party No. 2- Gugan son of Duliya had claimed that he was in settled possession of the subject land since long and had thus become Bhumidhar therein. Respondents are the legal heirs of Interested Party No.2 Gugan (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.No.2').

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant assails the aforesaid findings in the impugned judgment by urging that the revenue entries (Ex.IP- 2/1 to Ex.IP-2/3) and also revenue entries (Ex.IP-2/6 to Ex.IP-2/8) in favour of I.P.No.2 were not entered after complying with the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, and so these revenue entries are rendered invalid. To contend so, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants upon Rule 56, Rule 63(3) and Rule 67 of Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, as I.P.No.1 was not put to notice prior to the recording of the aforesaid revenue entries.