IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 07/10
Union of India ....Petitioner
Versus
- Shyamlat Deh Through BDO, South West, Gaon Sabha Dindarpur, New Delhi.
- Shri Raje Singh son of Late Shri Niyadar, VPO Dindarpur, New Delhi. ...Respondents
Filed on : 13.09.2010
Reserved on: 28.05.2011
Decided on : 28.05.2011
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Subject matter of this reference is land measuring 2 bighas 7 biswas in village Dindarpur which was part of Khasra No. 874/2.
3. Said land was acquired vide Award No. 07/200809 for construction of 100 mtrs. road under Planned Development of Delhi.
4. Total land acquired for road widening was 78 bighas and 14 biswas including land in question.
5. Notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served upon both the IPs by the Collector.
6. Claims were filed by both the IPs before the Collector for receiving compensation. As the Collector found the compensation disputed, he referred this reference to this Court for adjudicating entitlement of either party and also sent a sum of Rs. 13,93,970.58 which was the market value of the land in question as per award passed by the Collector.
7. To safeguard interest of parties, compensation was deposited in bank fixed deposit during pendency of this case.
8. Perusal of ENM shows that the nature of dispute is that recorded owner of land is Shyamlat Deh but IP No. 2 Shri Raje Singh was in cultivatory possession (as per revenue records) and as such claimed entire compensation. It is also noted in the remarks column that payment be not released untill possession of land is not taken.
9. On 18.10.2010, it was noted that this being a dispute under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the only issue would be "Which of the IPs is entitled to receive the compensation"?
10. Case of Gaon Sabha, Dindarpur is that Shamlat Deh land is meant for common purpose of the utility of villagers and belongs to claimant Gaon Sabha, Dindarpur. It is the case of Gaon Sabha that neither the said land was ever allotted to anyone legally nor it can be allotted under Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887 or under the Provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
11. It is further stated by Gaon Sabha that IP No. 2 got himself recorded as a Pattedar / Lease Holder illegally in collusion with the revenue staff for illegal and unlawful benefits.
12. IP No. 1 has stated that Gaon Sabha was the owner and in occupation and is entitled to receive the entire compensation.
13. Evidence by way of affidavit was also filed by Gaon Sabha reiterating similar averments as were made in the claim petition.
14. IP No. 2 did not file any claim petition but filed its evidence by way of affidavit straightaway.
15. Case of IP No. 2 is that in the year, 1976 he was allotted land measuring 5 bighas and 2 biswas as Pattedar. Reliance was placed on Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari in this regard.
16. IP No. 2 further stated that in the year, 1999 he had sold 4800 sq. yds. of the land to one Shri Ranbir Singh through General Power of Attorney and had handed over the possession of the land to him retaining only 300 sq. yds. with him.
17. It was further stated that the said Shri Ranbir Singh carved out plots and developed unauthorized colony known as Shyam Vihar, Dindarpur, New Delhi.
18. It was further stated that there are plots / houses over land in question and he had no objection in case compensation is given to those plot or house owners.
19. IP No. 2 claimed compensation only for 300 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No. 874.
20. IP No. 2 appeared in the Court and got his statement recorded on 18.01.2011. IP No. 2 stated that he was allotted the land under Rule 47 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act by Gram Panchayat and reiterated that he had no objection if the entire compensation was released in the favour of plot holders / house owners.
21. On two occasions, collector filed two written prayers before this Court during the pendency of this reference.
22. In written prayer dated 08.03.2011, it was stated that the land in question is built up and Collector had received 'many' applications regarding claim against this Khasra number requesting for payment of compensation. It is also stated that title of the land belongs to Shyamlat Deh and not to any individual owner.
23. In written prayer dated 02.04.2011, it was stated by LAC that except for application of Shri Raje Singh IP No. 2, no other application has been received by office of Collector.
24. Collector also filed on record copy of letter dated nil given by IP No. 2 in the office of LAC on 22.02.2011 withdrawing his claim and for treating his claim dated 22.05.2008 as nil. Reason assigned for withdrawal of claim was that IP No. 2 was Pattedar of land in question but had sold the same to Shri Ranbir Singh vide General Power of Attorney who had carved out plots on land in question and IP No. 2 had filed claim on the requests of those plot holders.
25. In view of withdrawal of claim by IP No. 2, counsel for IP No. 1 stated that now Goan Sabha be declared entitled to receive the entire compensation.
26. Reliance is placed on Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab : CA 1132/2011 dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Para 5 and 13 of said order are as under:
"5. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People wielding power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authority and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.
13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle / money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove the constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.09.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years".
27. IP No. 2 has not proved allotment of land in his favour by Gaon Panchayat in the year, 1976.
28. If some evidence was brought on record, this Court would have got opportunity to see legality of such allotment. In absence of any such evidence, merely on the basis of Jamabandi, it cannot be said that IP No.2 was allotted land in question legally and validly.
29. Revenue entries are for the purpose of collecting revenue and do not confer title.
30. Reliance on solitary jamabandi for the year 1990-91 is not sufficient to grant relief of release of compensation in favour of IP No. 2.
31. Khasra Girdawari relied upon by IP No. 2 in Khariff and Rabi crop column is showing 'Gair Mumkin Plot Makan'.
32. IP No. 2 has not shown that after allotment in his name in the year 1976, he was cultivating the land. Leave apart showing possession for three years, there is not even a single Khasra Girdawari showing cultivation of IP No. 2 over land in question.
33. Moreover, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) Shamlat Deh land is not open for allotment except for in cases of landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.
34. Allotment of Patta in favour of IP No. 2 was not permissible vis-a-vis Shamlat Deh land. Even grant of such Patta is not proved on record.
35. If any illegality /irregularity was committed in favour of IP No.2 by revenue officials and on the basis of such illegality /irregularity if IP No. 2 has sold land to gullible members of public through his attorney, let those plot owners recover damages from IP No.2 in civil proceedings in a Civil Court. None of plot owners is before this Court. No GPA executed by IP No. 2 in favour of Shri Ranbir Singh is before this Court. There is nothing on record about sale of plots by Shri Ranbir Singh in favour of different purchasers. Therefore, nothing further can be said in this regard.
36. As there is no evidence of urbanization of land in question under Section 507 of DMC Act, Gaon Sabha and not Ministry of Urban Affaris, would be entitled to receive the compensation.
37. Resultantly, claim of IP No. 1 is allowed.
38. Under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land which thereupon vests absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 31 of the Act, on making an award under Section 11, the Collector has to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub Section 2 of Section 31 of the Act.
39. In this case, Collector could not make the payment because there was dispute as to title to receive the compensation and as possession was not yet take over.
40. As dispute of title to receive the compensation is not resolved, compensation lying deposited in this court shall be released to IP No. 1 i.e. Gaon Sabha Dindarpur as and when its possession is taken over the Collector.
41. Reference petition is answered. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC (SW). File be consigned to record room.
No comments:
Post a Comment