P N MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant in the aforesaid appeal seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge whereunder the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 have been held entitled for the entire compensation for the acquisition of the land bearing Khasra No. 62/19/2 min (0-10), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Prahlad Pur Bangar, Delhi to the exclusion of the Appellant. The aforesaid land, at one point of time, was owned by Shri Lakhmi Chand, son of Shri Jangali; Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter of Shri Shish Ram; Smt. Chandarkala, widow of Shri Chottu, Ram Chander, Dayal Singh and Lachhman, sons of Shri Chottu and Smt. Daya Kaur, daughter of Shri Chottu. By virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 09.01.1989 registered as Document No. 727, Book No.-I, Volume No. 5966 at pages 179-181 dated 18.01.1989, the Appellant purchased 1000 sq. yards, i.e., 1 Bigha out of the aforesaid land. Upon purchase of the land, the Appellant also came into possession and continued to be in possession without any obstruction, objection or interference from any comer. The factum of the Appellant having come into possession of the said land is duly recorded in the Sale Deed itself which forms part of the record. The said Sale Deed was executed by Shri Ram Murti Sharma, who was the duly constituted Attorney on behalf of the above named persons vide Registered General Power of Attorney dated 31.10.1988 as set out in the recital clause of the Sale Deed itself.

(2.) There is no dispute as to the fact that the said land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'The DLR Act"). The said Act by enacting Section 31 lays down that the interest of a Bhumidar is transferable. As such, the Appellant claims to have acquired a valid and binding title to the said land. Respondent No. 1 proposed to acquire the said land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after completing the procedural formalities, Award No. 14/ 2002-03 came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Since the Appellant had a legal and valid subsisting interest in the said land, the Appellant made an application to the Land Acquisition Collector on 26/ 27.07.2007 stating therein that he had not been informed about the acquisition of his land, which had been purchased by him from Shri Ram Murti Sharma, General Attorney of the aforementioned persons and that he had moved an application for payment of compensation in respect of Khasra No. 62/ 19/2 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Prahlad Pur Bangar, Kanhwala Court Complex, but had not been informed the fate of his application till date. The Respondent No. 1, however, failed to take any action on the request for payment of compensation made by the Appellant and the Appellant was constrained to make another application to the Respondent No. 1 for release of compensation with an alternate prayer for making reference under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court of the District Judge concerned for the adjudication thereof.

(3.) Ultimately, the Respondent No. 1 made a reference under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has resulted in the passing of the impugned judgment. Pursuant to the aforesaid reference, the learned Trial Court issued notice of the reference to the Appellant as well as to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11. In compliance with the aforesaid notice, the Appellant appeared and filed his statement of claim. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 also appeared, but despite repeated opportunities failed to file any statement of claim and ultimately vide order dated 08.04.2010 the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were directed to be proceeded ex parte. Resultantly, before the learned Trial Court there was no claim on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, meaning thereby that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 neither made any demand for payment of the compensation nor disputed the right of the Appellant to receive the compensation. Pertinently also, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 at no point of time disputed the Sale Deed or the title of the Appellant to the said land. The Appellant entered the witness box in support of his claim which he proved by filing his own affidavit by way of evidence Ex. IP11W-1/A. He deposed that he had purchased the acquired land vide registered Sale Deed dated 19.01.1989 from Shri Ram Murti Sharma, General Attorney of Laxmi Chand, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Chander Kala, Shri Ram Chander, Shri Dayal Singh and Shri Laxman (Ex. IP 11/ 1), hence he was entitled to the entire compensation. Significantly, the Appellant was not subjected to any cross-examination and his testimony thus remains unrebutted and unchallenged on record. In the course of final arguments, however, counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 appeared and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. It was then sought to be argued on their behalf that from the evidence led by the Appellant it was not proved that he had purchased the acquired land from the recorded Bhumidar of the land as the General Power of Attorney executed by Shri Ram Murti Sharma had not been produced. It was further argued that as such, the Appellant was not entitled to any portion of the compensation and it was the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 who were entitled to the entire compensation.