UTTAM SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has sought the quashing of an order, Annexure P-2 passed on 3.1.1992 by Shri R.K. Mishra, Land Acquisition Collector (ME), Delhi declining to make a reference on the petitioner's application filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and has also sought a further direction against the Collector for making reference to court for adjudication of his rights as regards the apportionment of the amount of compensation.

(2.) The facts in brief are that 42 bighas 10 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.60, 61,62/1, 66/2, 143/1 min., 414 min., 468/2, 469/ 1, 472, 473, 474 and 517 situate within the revenue estate of village Jaitpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was recorded in revenue records in the name of Sunder Singh, son of Jeet Singh as Bhumidar.

(3.) A portion out of the aforementioned land, comprised in khasra No.468/2, 469/ 1,472, 473, 474 and 517 was acquired by the Government for public purpose, namely, for construction of Ash Pond of Badarpur Thermal by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 2.6.1989. Collector, Land Acquisition, made his award No.2/90-91 of village Jaitpur, Delhi on 6-4.1990 assessing the market value of the acquired land. Since Sunder Singh, son ofJeet Singh, who is respondent No.4 in this petition, was recorded as Bhumidar with "respect of the aforementioned land, compensation was also assessed in his name. Uttam Singh and Amar Singh, petitioner the two sons of Sunder Singh moved an application on 1.11.1991 claiming that the acquired property was ancestral in the hands of their father, who had acquired the same by inheritence from their grand father Jeet Singh and thus they were the co-parceners, being members of Joint Hindu Family. They also claimed that they were in cultivating possession of the acquired land since 1966 by virtue of a family settlement. Both of them claimed to be .in separate possession falling to their respective shares ay per the family settlement. Both of them also claimed that they were entitled to l/4th share each in the amount of compensation and accordingly prayed that a reference be made under Sections 30 .and 31 of the Act for determination of their rights. This application was considered by first respondent, who through the impugned order, annexure P-2, declined to make reference- observing that the petitioner had no claim in the amount of compensation since their rights already stood adjudicated.