SURESHWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKTESHWAR Prasad, J. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') by Smt. Sureshwati (claimant) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24-1-2001 passed by District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar whereby he found that neither the claimant nor M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to receive compensation in respect of Khasra No. 554/3 area 5-0-0 Bighas situate in village Geja Tilaptabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar and the land in question would be deemed to have been resumed by the State.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under: It appears that the land recorded as Khasra No. 554/3 area 5- 0-0 Bighas situate in village Geja Tilaptabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri. District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired for the planned development of New Okhla INdustrial Development Authority. IN the Revenue records, the name of Smt. Sureshwati, widow of Shri Ram, was recorded as Bhumidhar with non- transferable rights. Therefore, the compensation under Section 11 of the Act was prepared in her name. However, M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. 11, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi preferred a claim for payment of compensation of the land in question on the ground of being a transferee of Smt. Sureshwati. An objection was filed. Since M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Sureshwati were claiming their rights for payment of compensation in respect of the aforesaid Khasara No. 554/3, area 5-0-0 Bighas, the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition Officer) NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar made a reference to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Act for determining the person/persons to whom the compensation or any part thereof is payable.

(3.) SMT. Sureshwati filed written statement/objection claiming herself to be Bhumidhar of the plot with non-transferable rights and the land was acquired from her possession. She asserted that the land in question was neither sold to M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. nor SMT. Nirmala Sethi nor any sale consideration was paid to her. The lady claimed that the disputed land was allotted to her as non-transferable Bhumidhar vide resolution-dated 11-2- 1981 passed by the Land Management Committee. Moreover, on 2-12- 88 she had no right to execute sale deed in favour of SMT. Nirmala Sethi and as such, the sale deed in question is a void document. According to her, she needed money and contacted Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, a deed writer at Dadri in this regard. Sri Sharma pleaded his inability in advancing any loan. He, however, assured that he would arrange a loan of Rs. 15,000/- on the condition that some papers would have to be prepared. She is a rustic villager and is an illiterate lady. She therefore affixed her thumb impression on some papers through which loan was advanced to her. SMT. Nirmala Sethi had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000/ -. She never executed any sale deed voluntarily nor affixed her thumb impressions knowing that she was transferring her land. Moreover. the alleged sale deed was never read over and explained to her. She was not paid Rs. 90,000/- before the Sub- registrar. The alleged sale deed was obtained by her by practicing fraud and misrepresentation.