Jai Parkash & Anr. vs Smt. Pushpa & Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 590 Del

ORDER

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th November, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in the Land Acquisition Case No. 140/1990 arising out of Award No. 2/78-79 Village Kondli directing for substitution of the names of the petitioners and also of the respondents in place of deceased Ram Nath.

2. The father of the petitioners late Shri Ram Nath was the owner of Agricultural land in Village Kondli, Tehsil Shahdara, Delhi. It is an admitted position that in respect of the said land he was a recorded Bhumidar as the land in question was agricultural land. The said land came to be acquired by the Government under a Notification issued under ections 4, 6, & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.2.81. An Award in respect of the said acquisition proceedings came to be passed by the Collector on 31.1.82. However, the redecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being aggrieved by the award and fixation of the amount of compensation in the said land acquisition proceedings by the Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis of which a reference case was registered being LAC No. 140/90 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid case predecessor in interest of the petitioners Ram Nath died on 13.11.90 leaving behind them and his wife and the respondents as the legal heirs. Accordingly an application was filed contending, inter alia, that the names of the petitioners be substituted in place of deceased Ram Nath. It was also contended that although the deceased has left behind his widow Smt. Bhagwati and two daughters Smt. Santosh and Smt. Pushpa their names cannot be substituted in view of the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Santosh, daughters of deceased Ram Nath contested the aforesaid application contending, inter alia, that the land in dispute after acquisition would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and not by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and, therefore, they are also to be imp leaded in the proceedings as legal representatives of the deceased Ram Nath.

4. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties before the Additional District Judge an issue arose for consideration as to whether the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act or the provisions of Hindu Succession Act would apply in the matter of substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Nath. The Additional District Judge after hearing the parties and on consideration of the records and the relevant provisions held that the provision of section 50 of the Delhi Land reforms Act is not applicable and the matter of succession in the case would be governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act as the land in question stood acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. He, therefore, ordered for substitution of the names of the petitioner as also of Smt. Bhagwati, Smt. Santosh and Smt. Pushpa as legal representatives in place of deceased Ram Nath. It may be mentioned herein that the widow namely, Smt. Bhagwati died after the order was passed.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking setting side of the said order. Mr. Kapur appearing for the petitioners submitted that when a Bhumidar of the land governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1952 dies, the manner in which succession to his land should take place is contained in the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act in terms of which the married daughters would have got no right of inheritance. According to him since the manner and mode of succession in the land held by Bhumidar is provided for under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act which is a special act, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act would not be applicable. In support of his contention he relied upon a Division Bench decision in Ram Mehar Vs. Miss Dakhan, reported in ILR (1972) Vol. 2 Delhi page 922. In support of his contention the learned counsel also relied upon the definition of legal representatives as provided in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the provisions of section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act gives the general order of Succession from males, according to which if the male bhumidar dies his interest in his holdings will devolve in accordance with the order of succession as given thereunder. He also submitted that there is no provision in the Delhi Land Reforms Act governing the compensation payable to the deceased Bhumidar in the event of acquisition of his right in the land by the Government prior to his death and accordingly the provisions of Hindu Succession Act shall apply to such a case of acquisition of land. He further submitted that since the land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act before the death of late Ram Nath and since the land stood vested in the in the Government under the Provisions of Section 17 of the said Act immediately upon issuance of the said Notification, provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act would no longer be applicable to the case in hand and that in the event of death of the concerned person manner of succession thereto would be governed by the general law of succession as is contained under the Hindu Succession Act. In support of his submission counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision given by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC No. 7/87 titled Union of India Vs. Sri Bhula etc. and also in the decision of this court in the Civil Revision arising out of the aforesaid order and registered as C.R. No. 492/93 which was disposed of on 6.2.95. It was also brought to my notice that as against the aforesaid dismissal of the revision petition against the order passed by the Additional District Judge in LAC No. 7/87, a Special Leave Petition was also preferred before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 7.8.95.

7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act or the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would be applicable for determining the manner of succession and inheritence to the land in case a Bhumidar dies after the land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

8. In order to answer the aforesaid issue it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act which provides that when a Bhumidar or Asami being a male dies his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession as given under that Section. The provision of Hindu Succession Act, on the other hand, provides the manner of interest succession amongst Hindus. Section 8 provides that the property of a male Hindu dying interest shall devolve upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule who shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs. A son, a widow, a daughter whether married or unmarried is included in the aforesaid category.

9. The land in question stood acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.2.1981 by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 and provisions of Section 17 were made applicable to the land in question. The land stood vested on the government immediately on acquisition of the said land. The Award in respect of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings was also made on 31.1.82 and, therefore, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners became entitled to receive the compensation fixed by the Collector immediately after passing of the aforesaid Award by the Collector. He, however, being not satisfied with the award and the compensation fixed by the Collector preferred a Reference Application under Section 18 which was pending disposal before the Reference Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings he died on 13.11.90 leaving behind his sons, the petitioners, his widow, who also however died later on and the two married daughters who are respondents herein.

10. As provided for under Section 1(2)(c) the provisions of the Delhi Land reforms Act would not apply to the areas acquired under the Land Acquisi-

tion Act. Provisions of Section 50 would be applicable so long the land continues to be governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and also so long the concerned person continues to be a Bhumidar in such land. With the acquisition of the land the same vested on the government and, therefore, the right of the Bhumidar, if any, in the land could not be said to be subsisting after the land was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

11. In the case in hand not only the land vested in the government but Award was also passed by the Collector in respect of the land and the compensation was fixed and, therefore, by no stratch of imagination it can be said that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners continued to hold bhumidari right over the aforesaid land. The object and purpose of enacting the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act by giving preference to males in succession of Bhumidar rights appears to be to ensure that land goes to actual tiller and there is avoidance of unnecessary fragmentation. After the acquisition of the land by the government the said object and purpose is lost and , therefore, the Provision of he Delhi Land Reforms Act could not be made applicable in respect of acquired land. Consequently, the provisions of the general Law of Succession as Provided for under the Hindu Succession Act should apply in the matter of succession and also in the matter of entitlement to compensation payable for the acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act.

12. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Nath (supra) reported in ILR 1972(2) Delhi it was held by the Division Bench of this court that as the Delhi Land Reforms Act provides for the prevention of the fragmentation of agricultural holdings and also, at the material time fixed ceilings on agricultural holdings and also dealt with the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings, it is saved by Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and is not repealed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. This would mean that the rule of succession governing Hindu Bhumidars is to be found in Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and not in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said decision was given by this court in respect of a case deciding the rule of succession governing Hindu Bhumidars and in respect of land which continued to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

13. That was not a case where the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and stood vested on the Government and, therefore, the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said decision this court after referring to various provisions namely, the provisions of Section 30 and Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act arrived at a conclusion that there is a clear restrictions to be found in the Delhi Land Reforms Act relating to fragmentation of holdings as well as provisions regarding ceiling on holdings and thus held that rule of succession as provided under Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would apply to the succession of a Hindu Bhumidars and not the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In the present case if the land would not have been acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners would have continued to hold the Bhumidar rights over the land and on his death the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would have been applicable in the light of the law laid down by the said Division Bench decision of the Court. But the very fact that the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land stood vested on the Government and also the fact that the Award was passed by the Collector determining the compensation payable, brought about or change in the law applicable and the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act could not be made applicable for determining the right of succession to the said property. The manner of succession, in my considered opinion, would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

14. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 7 of 1987 titled as Union of India vs. Sri Bhula etc. the Additional District Judge held that compensation arising out of the holding which stood acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be distributed amongst all the legal representatives in equal shares in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and not as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Fact of the said case appeared to be almost akin and similar to the facts of the case in hand. It may be mentioned herein that as against the aforesaid judgment passed by the Additional District Judge on 21.5.93 in LAC No. 7/97 a revision petition was preferred in this court which was registered as Cr No. 492/93 and the said revision petition was dismissed by this court on 6.2.95. Being aggrieved an S.L.P. was filed which was numbered as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17053/95. The said petition was dismissed by the Supreme court on 7.8.1995.

15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The said order is found to be legal and valid and is accordingly upheld. The present revision petition stands dismissed but without any costs.