Sri Chand vs Land Acquisition Collector And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 395 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Shri Bharat Singh had two sons, viz., Sri Chand and Sardar Singh. Unfortunately, Sardar Singh died leaving behind his son Ishwar Singh. Bharat Singh is the recorded bhumidar of land bearing khasra nos. 643 (4-16), 646 (4-16), 647/1 (3-16) and 648 (0-14), measuring 14 bigha and 2 biswas, situated in revenue estate of Rajapur Kalan, Delhi to the extent of -+ share.

2. The claim of the Petitioner Sri Chand is that the said land was not self acquired property of Bharat Singh, but in fact, he had inherited the same from his father as such both the sons were co-parceners and were co-sharers and owners to the extent of one third share. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Ram Chander Vs. Commissioner and Director of Consolidation (H.C.), 1970 Revenue Decisions 283. Bharat Singh was in possession as a co-sharer on behalf of all and was shown as such. In 1954-55, the rights of bhumidari alleged to have been recorded in favor of Bharat Singh without any inquiry. The Delhi Land Reforms Act was promulgated as on 20th July, 1954. The land in question was acquired by the appropriate Government which issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, an award was passed being award No. 20 of 2003-04 which was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25th November, 2003.

3. Sri Chand filed objections/application under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the Land Acquisition Collector, Kanjhawla, Delhi to refer his claim to District Judge for adjudication, disputing the right of his father Bharat Singh to receive the entire compensation in regard to land in question. According to the petitioner he did not receive any reply and issued a reminder dated 8th July, 2004 but of no consequence. On 19th July, 2004 when the petitioner approached the respondent's office personally where he was told that the entire compensation would be disbursed to Bharat Singh, respondent No. 2 in this petition, within a day or two. The petitioner apprehending that he will not get relief at the hands of the Land Acquisition Collector, filed a writ petition in this Court being WP(C) No. 12193/2004 titled as 'Sri Chand Vs. Land Acquisition Collector'. Vide order dated 29th July, 2004, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed by a Division Bench of this Court with the following directions :

...........In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the Respondents shall reconsider the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 30 and 31 of the Act after affording him a personal hearing. It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall appear before the LAC on 9th August, 2004 at 3.00 p.m. and furnish the material on which he proposes to place reliance in support of his application. The LAC shall thereafter pass a speaking order on the said representation and communicate the same to the Petitioner. Compensation in respect of the subject land shall not be disbursed to anyone for a period of ten days from the date of communication of the order to the Petitioner.

The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

dusty.

4. In furtherance to the above order of the Court, the petitioner has filed written submissions before the Land Acquisition Collector and finally after hearing the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 21st September, 2004 rejected the claim of the petitioner while directing that payment of the amount be made to Bharat Singh.

5. The operative part of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector reads as under :

.............I have gone through the objection filed by the objector and the citations delivered by various Courts. It is an admitted fact that Shri Bharat Singh S/o Shri Sohan Lal is the recorded owner of the land under reference. And as per the order of Delhi High Court dated 30.5.2002 in RFA No. 369/2002 in the matter of Shri Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. I am of the considered view that during the life time of Shri Bharat Singh, it is not possible for the objectors to lay claim on the amount of compensation which necessarily has to be offered to the person who holds the land in whatever capacity that may be. In the instant cases Shri Bharat Singh S/o Shri Sohan Lal is the recorded owner and hence payment be released to him. The objections are disposed of in terms of above direction.

6. The petitioner, thus, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays that the above order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is liable to be set aside as it is contrary to law and has been passed in an arbitrary manner. The basic ground on which the order is impugned is that the petitioner was born prior to enforcement of Delhi Land Reforms Act and as such the mere fact that his father Bharat Singh was recorded as bhumidar could not be a ground for disbursing the entire amount of compensation to him as the petitioner by his birth had acquired a right in the property being a co-parcener. The authorities were thus duty bound to treat the petitioner as bhumidar being a co-owner and pay him one third share of the award. The order of the Collector suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record being contrary to the law of succession applicable to a co-parcener. Upon notice a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is stated therein that there was never any joint Hindu family consisting of the petitioner and the members of the family of the replying respondent. It is specifically disputed that the petitioner was a co-sharer or a co-parcener in the land in dispute. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner had separated and all connections with the family were severed nearly 40 years ago and none of the children have any right in the property of the said respondent who is the absolute owner and bhumidar of the land. The claim on the petitioner is disputed in law and it is stated that provisions of the Act in any case were applicable to the facts of the present case and the petition should be dismissed.

7. The bare reading of the impugned order passed by the Collector shows that he relied upon a judgment of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 369/2002 in Shri Randhir Singhs' case (Supra) and directed that during the life time of Bharat Singh it was not permissible for the objector to lay any claim in regard to any compensation payable for the acquired land. We had called for the file of the said RFA No. 369/2002 and we find that the stand taken by the Collector is in consonance with the judgment of the Division Bench. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admitted to distinguish the said judgment on the ground that probably in Randhir Singh's Case (Supra) the claimant was born subsequent to the enforcement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act while in the present case the petitioner was born before the enforcement of the said Act. This argument is based on misconception of the petitioner even in regard to the facts of that case. It is clear from the record before us that in Randhir Singh's Case (Supra) also the claimant was born in the year 1953 while Act came into force in the year 1954 though in the writ petition it has been stated that petitioner was born in the year 1944 and the Act came into force on 20th July, 1954.

8. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Randhir Singh's Case (Supra) and we see no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Court in that case.

9. Delhi Land Reforms Act is a special statute and would be applicable in regard to payment of compensation to a person who holds the land in terms of the provisions of that Act. The Court relied upon another judgment of the Punjab High Court in Gopi Chand and Ors. vs. Smt. Bhagwani Devi, AIR 1964 Punjab 272, with respect we follow the view and reject the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that Bharat Singh has no right to receive the compensation in face of the objections filed by the objector. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra and Ors. Vs. Pramod Gupta and Ors., that maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium Court should aim to preserve ad protect the right of the parties and the Land Acquisition Collector ought to have determine the entitlement and apportion the compensation amongst all the persons interested. This proposition of law cannot be disputed. The Collector could protect and preserve the rights of the parties and ensure apportionment of the amount of compensation between the interested persons provided they were all interested persons and as per law. If a claimant or an objector submits an application which suffers from a p tent legal defect of his very right to raise claim of apportionment then no fault can be found with the Collector in this regard. It is a conceded case before us that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and which was subject matter of S.L.P. No. 14020/2002 which was dismissed on 16th August, 2002. As such this judgment and the statement of law therein has attained finality. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 also contended that the application suffers from delay and latches and also that the Collector was not justified in entertaining the application which itself was beyond the prescribed period and could not have discussed the merits of the case. In our view the respondent cannot raise this plea in the present writ petition inasmuch as the Collector has passed the impugned order in furtherance to the direction issued by the Division Bench of High Court in WP(C) NO. 12193/2004 As far as controversy with regard to the other objections mentioned in the application of the petitioner before the Collector, it is not necessary for us nor are we called upon to decide those controversies in the present writ petition. Suffice it to say that the order passed by the Collector is in consonance with the settled principles of law and does not call for any interference. It is also true that the notification under Section 4 for acquisition of land was issued on 22nd August, 2001 and the award was passed on 25th November, 2003. The petitioner filed the application before the Collector only on 10th February, 2004 for all this period right from his birth in the year 1954 and keeping in view the facts averred in the counter affidavit by his father that for years he had severed all relations with his family, still he took no steps before any Court of a competent jurisdiction to enforce his claim of being a co-parcener in the property in question. These facts we have only noticed for the purpose of illustrating the conduct of the petitioner or all this period which by itself would be a ground for denying him any equitable relief in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. For the reasons aforestated we find no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.