Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Lakhpat & Ors on 30 November, 2010
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% L.A. APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2007
+ Date of Decision: 30th November, 2010
# Khazan Singh & ors .....Appellants
! Through: Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate
versus
$ Union of India & ors. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for R-2
Ms. Pratibha, Advocate for R-3
Ms. Neelam, Advocate for R-4 & R-5
Mr. Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Ajay
Verma, Advocate for DDA
WITH
% L.A. APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2008
# Prasadi ..... Appellant
! Through: Ms. Pratibha, Advocate
versus
$ Union of India & ors. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate for R-3 to R-6
Ms. Neelam, Advocate for R-7 & R-8
Mr. Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Ajay
Verma, Advocate for DDA
WITH
% L.A. APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2008
# Udai Singh & ors. ..... Appellants
! Through: Ms. Neelam, Advocate
versus
L.A. APPEAL NOS. 402/07, 326/08, 332/08 & 500/09 Page 1 of 6
$ Union of India & ors. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate for R-3 to R-6
Ms. Pratibha, Advocate for R-7
Mr. Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Ajay
Verma, Advocate for DDA
AND
% L.A. APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2009
# Union of India ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
versus
$ Lakhpat & ors. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Pratibha, Advocate for R-2
Ms. Neelam, Advocate for R-3 & 4
Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for R-5
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J( ORAL)
These four appeals arose out of the judgment and decree dated 5th
November,2007 passed by the Additional District Judge in a Reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the Land
Acquisition Collector's award no.79/1982-83 relating to some land in
village Dallupura and with the consent of the parties all the appeals were
taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of also together by
this common judgment.
2. As far as the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court
is concerned there is no challenge to that by any of the parties in these
appeals. The real dispute was between the private parties involved in
these appeals regarding their entitlement to get compensation in respect
of their lands in different khasras in village Dallupura which had been
acquired for the planned development of Delhi. It appears that the lands
in dispute were owned by Lakhpat and Dalpat and after the death of both
of them their sons have been fighting to get compensation in respect of
their shares. It also appears from the Reference Court's record that some
disputes had cropped up amongst the legal heirs of the deceased Lakhpat
and Parsadi, one of the sons of late Dalpat, in respect of his 1/6th share in
some of the acquired lands and some disputes arose between the legal
heirs of Dalpat and Lakhpat and one R.S.Kataria who claimed to have
acquired interest in the land falling in khasra nos. 475/393(6-0) and
476/393(5-17) by virtue of some transfer documents executed in his
favour by late Lakhpat and the legal heirs of late Dalpat. Before that
dispute could be resolved, R.S.Kataria assigned his interest in the
aforesaid lands in favour of one Chaman Singh,who is now respondent no.
2 in LAA No. 326/08 filed by Prasadi, one of the three sons of late Dalpat.
R.S.Kataria thereafter walked out of the scene and his assignee Chaman
Singh took over his legal fight. The detailed background facts giving rise
to the inter-se disputes between the legal heirs of Lakhpat and Dalpat and
also with R.S.Kataria, who is now represented by Chaman Singh, have
been noted by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and the
same need not be stated in this judgment because of the judgment which
is going to be delivered by this Court with the consent of all the parties in
these appeals. Suffice to say, the disputes primarily centred around
certain documents which the loser parties were claiming to be forged
while the successful parties were claiming them to be genuine. In that
fight the Union of India ahd no involvement but is aggrieved by the grant
of interest on the amount of compensation to the successful parties for
certain period which according to it they were not entitled to get.
3. After advancing some arguments, the learned counsel for all the
parties agreed that since the trial Court had not touched at all certain very
material aspects and had also not framed material issues arising out of the
pleadings of the parties the impugned judgment and decree can be set
aside and the matter remanded back to the trial Court after framing
additional issues for a fresh decision on all the issues framed already as
well as the ones to be framed by this Court, after giving opportunity to all
the parties to adduce further evidence, if they so desire.
4. After going through the trial Court's record I am also of the view
that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the trial Court after
framing some additional issues for a fresh trial on all the issues which are
framed already and which are going to be framed by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the following additional issues are framed:-
A. Whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and
legal heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh
relinquishing their share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup
Kataria are forged? If so, to what extent.
B. If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of Chaman Singh, whether
he is still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those
documents did not in law convey any right or title in respect of the
disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria?
C. Whether appellant Prasadi had executed any assignment deed in
respect of his 1/6th share in favour of late Sh. Lakhpat, as is being claimed
by his legal heirs?
6. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the case is
remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the issues already
framed as well as the aforesaid additional issues The trial Court shall
permit the parties to adduce further evidence , if they so desire. Since the
matter is being remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh trial, Union of
India would also be at liberty to urge before the trial Court that it is not
liable to pay any interest for the period during which the proceedings had
remained stayed sine die. The parties shall appear before the trial Court
on 14th January, 2011 at 2.00 p.m. when the case shall be taken up by the
trial Court and the trial Court shall make all possible efforts to conclude
the fresh trial by 31st December, 2011. The amount of compensation
which the Land Acquisition Collector had deposited in this Court and is
stated to be lying invested with a bank in a fixed deposit shall continue to
remain invested and shall be subject to the fresh decision of the
Reference Court after remand.
P.K. BHASIN,J
November 30, 2010/pg
