KALAWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the cousin sister of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, is claiming 1/3rd share in the compensation given for a part of the land in village bawana, Delhi which was acquired by the Union of India (respondent No. 1) vide award No. 9/99/2000. Said land was bearing Khasra Nos. 15/1 (4-16) and 4/21/3 (1-4) situate in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. This land was in the name of the three brothers, namely, Shri Sohan Lal, Shri Bhudatt and Shri bishan Dutt, who were also jointly declared as bhumidars of the aforementioned land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'land Reforms Act' ). All these brothers have since died. The appellant is the daughter of late Shri Sohan Lal, who died in the year 1952, i. e. before the promulgation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'hindu Succession Act' ). Respondents No. 2 to 4 are the sons of late Shri bhudatt and late Shri Bishan Dutt.

(2.) FOR claiming 1/3rd share, the appellant made application to the Land acquisition Collector (LAC), who sent a reference under Section 30 and 31 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'act') in respect of 1/3rd share of late Shri Sohan Lal in view of the dispute created by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contending that after the death of Shri Sohan Lal in the year 1952, his share also devolved upon the male persons in the family and could not go to the daughter (appellant herein ). As there was no dispute about the remaining 2/3rd share of the compensation payable to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, LAC disbursed that portion of the share to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(3.) VIDE judgment dated 21. 4. 2008, the learned ADJ has held that the appellant would not be entitled to any compensation as there was no law under which the daughter could inherit share in the property of her father after father's death and under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, said share of late Shri Sohan lal devolved upon respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are male members in the family; albeit the nephew, and in fact mutated in their names as well in the revenue records on 11. 7. 1995.