INDER SINGH Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular First Appeal No. 5-D of 1961 and the Civil Revision No. 55-D of 1961 are both directed against the judgment of Shri Gurbachan Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated October 1, 1960, and they can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to the appeal and revision are briefly as follows. Certain land measuring 1458 big has 9 biswas belonged to Inder Singh and five others who are sons of Shri Badri Singh. The land is situated at village Khampur, Delhi. The said land was acquired by the Delhi State Government in 1955 under the land Acquisition Act, and the Collector gave his award on March 23, 1956. One of the claimants, Ram Sarup, filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. in that application, he alleged that the aforesaid land was leased out to him for a period of twenty years, viz. from 1939 to 1959. under an order of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, in execution of his decree against Badri Singh, that he was a person interested in the compensation awarded by the Collector, that he had also become the bhumidar of that land and as such was entitled to compensation for the unexpired portion of the lease, that the Collector erred in assuming that he was a mortagee ignoring the fact that he was lessee and was thus interested in and entitled to a share in the compensation, and that the case may, therefore, be referred to the Court so that he may get his due share in the compensation and the respondents to the application, who were sons of Badri Singh (land owner), may be directed to pay back the amount of compensation received by them and the same may be re-distributed according to law. The Land Acquisition Collector accordingly referred the ease to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi.

(3.) The respondents to the application filed a written statement and a further written statement opposing the application and contended, inter alia, that Ram Sarup had not been declared bhumidar of the land in question, that certain other persons had become bhumidars of the land and were, therefore, necessary parties, that Ram Sarup was not a lessee but a mortgagee of the land in dispute for a fixed period of twenty years, and that under section 15 of the Delhi Land. Reforms Act the proportionate share of the mortgage money due to him was deposited in. the Court of the Revenue Assistant and, therefore, the mortgage stood redeemed and Ram Sarup was not entitled to any compensation. In the alternative, they pleaded that Ram Sarup had alienated his rights in the land in favour of two persons Ishar Singh and Dharam Singh, and, therefore, he had no interest left in the land in dispute and the application for reference was incompetent. They also pleaded that the reference was barred by time.