(1.) By this suit the plaintiffs claim a decree for declaration to the effect that the Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 16-5-1986 so far it holds that the bhumidari rights granted to Bahadur and others is wrong, consequently he and now his successors, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the compensation, be declared null and void and without jurisdiction and of no legal effect whatsoever.
(2.) The plaint proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiffs are the heirs and successors of late Bahadur whereas the defendants 4 to 8 are the heirs and successors of late Prem Chand. There was a joint khata of 314 bighas 6 biswas which constituted 72 parts and out of this joint khata Kale and Rughan had 21/72 shares whereas Ram Chander had 17 parts, Prem Raj had 17 parts and Bahadur had 17 parts. Rughan, Kale and Prem Raj were sons of Inder. Rughan expired in the year 1966 issueless and was succeeded by Kale and Prem Raj. It is claimed that Prem Raj filed a suit (being suit No. 316 of 1960) and it was in appeal that Prem Chand was not accepted as the adopted son of Rughan. However, on the basis of a Will he was declared to be successor of Rughan's estate having 21/144 share in the joint khata. It is stated that after coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, Bahadur was declared bhumidar of the suit land under Sections 11 and 13 of the Land Reforms Act. Prem Chand challenged the bhumidari rights of Bahadur before the Revenue Court, but all his objections and appeals stood dismissed and the result was that Bahadur was declared as bhumidar of the land in dispute. The land in dispute was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award awarded a sum of Rs. 1,48,140.06 in respect of the land in question. Since there were disputes as to who was entitled to receive the compensation the matter was referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the learned Additional District Judge under the provisions of Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(3.) The rival claimants before the court were Bahadur and Prem Chand. Bahadur set up his claim before the Additional District Judge on the ground that he was the bhumidar in possession in respect of the entire land which was the subject matter of reference and the possession of the land was taken by the Government from him, and on these premises he claimed to be entitled to the entire compensation. On the other hand Prem Chand claimed compensation to the exclusion of Bahadur. It was asserted by him that he was the bhumidar. It was stated that the acquired land originally belonged to late Rughan, who executed a Will bequeathing his entire property to him. He filed a suit for declaration and possession against Bahadur, Kale and others. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but it was decreed by the first appellate court, on 21-7-1963. The second appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed. After the decision of the first appellate court he filed an application before the Revenue Assistant for the grant of bhumidari rights under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for the land owned and possessed by late Rughan. His application was dismissed on 15-7-1966 by the Revenue Assistant. An appeal filed against that order was stayed on 7-10-1966 till the final disposal of the second appeal filed by Kale and Bahadur against Prem Chand. After dismissal of the second appeal of Bahadur and others, the appeal proceedings pending before the Additional Collector were revived. The Additional Collector accepted the appeal and the case was remanded. Bahadur filed a Revision against the order of remand 304 before the Financial Commissioner, which revision was dismissed on 21-3-1971. The Revenue Assistant by his order dated 5-4-1972 held that the application under Section II of the Act filed by him had abated. His appeal before the Additional Collector against the abatement was dismissed. But the Revision was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and was now being tried by the Revenue Assistant. On this ground he claims to be entitled to the gram of bhumidari rights in respect of the land owned by late Rughan as the question regarding inheritance of Rughan's property was finally decided by the High Court in his favour.