SATYA PRAKASH Vs. GHASI RAM GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contesting parties in this appeal had sought reference under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for apportionment of compensation in respect of 24 bighas and 4 biswas of land located in khasra numbers 1627 (3-18), 1637/2 (2-8), 1642/3/2(00-5), 1645 (4-16), 1652/1(2-7), 1653 (4-16) & 1654 (5-14) in the revenue estate of Village- Nangal Dewat, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land'), which stands decided against the appellants vide impugned order of 15th February, 1987, wherein appellants were referred to as Interested Parties No. 3 & 4 and the first respondent, as Interested Party No. 1, whereas respondents No. 2 to 7 were referred as successors in interest of Interested Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as I.Ps.). The finding returned in the impugned order against the appellants of their having lost the bhumidari rights in respect of the subject land, in view of the revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari and khatoni of 1970-71, being in favour of the respondents, disentitling the appellants to seek apportionment of the compensation awarded vide Award No. 23 of 1973-74, is assailed by learned counsel for the appellants by urging as under:-

(2.) The decision of the civil court dt. 28.05.1968, Ex. I.P. 3/2, granting a declaratory decree in favour of the appellants of being owners in possession of khasra No. 1653 & 1654, measuring 10 bighas and 10 biswas in the revenue estate of Nangal Dewat, Delhi, operates as res-judicata as per learned counsel for the appellants and so according to appellants' counsel, the finding returned in the impugned order of afore-noted decision (Ex. I.P. 3/2) being not res-judicata because after the said decision, rights of the parties can be changed under the law, is legally erroneous.

(3.) It was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants' that the revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari for the year 1971-72 (Ex. S-4) indicates that on account of sale, appellants are in possession of the subject land and thereafter, the said land stands vested in the government on account of it being acquired. It was also urged by appellants' counsel that there is no documentary evidence that the respondents ever came in possession of the land in dispute after executing Sale Deed of 12th March, 1956 (Ex. S-1).