Delhi High Court
Nathu Thr. Lrs. vs Uoi & Ors. on 2 May, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.05.2013
+ LA APP. 171/2009 & CM 3406/2009
NATHU THR. LRS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. with Ms.
K.Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Adv. for R-
1/LAC/UOI
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The land comprised in Khasra no.337/2, measuring 4 bigha 12 biswas, the
land comprised in Khasra no. 338 measuring 3 bigha 19 biswas and the land
comprised in Khasra no.351 measuring 1 bigha 18 biswas in Village Jaitpur was
acquired by the Government vide Award no.1/74-75. Mr. Dahiya, who appears for
the appellants states that no compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition
Collector to any person in respect of the land comprised in the above referred
Khasras. The appellants before this Court having sought a Reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the matter was referred to the learned Additional
Judge. Vide the impugned order dated 3.4.2008, the learned Additional District
Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and
also held that the appellants were entitled to compensation of the land comprised in
Khasra Nos. 338 and 351, but not in respect of Khasra no.337/2. The reason given
by the learned Additional District Judge for not awarding compensation to the
appellants in respect of the land in Khasra No.337/2 was that in the statement under
Section 19 of the aforesaid Act, the ownership of no one was recorded in respect of
the aforesaid Khasra. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before
this Court, to the extent they have been refused compensation in respect of land
comprised in Khasra no.337/2.
2. A perusal of the statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act
would show that against the column of 'recorded owner', the name of Nathu
predecessor in interest of the appellants was shown in respect of land comprised in
Khasra nos. 338 and 351 whereas, in respect of the land comprised in Khasra
No.337/2, the Entry was "note recorded owner".
3. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that no evidence was led
by the appellants to prove that they were the owners of the land comprised in
Khasra no.337/2 measuring 4 bigha and 12 biswas. In fact, ownership was not even
claimed by them. No revenue record was produced by them to prove that the land
in question was in their possession, when it was notified. No Khasra Girdhawari or
Jamabandi was produced by them to prove that they were owners or were in
possession of the aforesaid land. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the
land comprised in Khasra no.337/2 was owned by the appellants or their
predecessor and also considering the statement under Section 19, which is prepared
after consulting the revenue records and is to give the particulars of the persons
interested in the acquired land, the learned Additional District Judge in my view
was absolutely justified in not awarding any compensation to the appellants in
respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.337/2.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the Payment Certificate
dated 3.5.1989 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, certifying therein that
Nathu was paid an amount of Rs.28241.12 which had been sent to the Court of
learned Additional District Judge on 29.8.1974 under Section 30-31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, as compensation vide Award no.1/74-75 dated 29.4.1974 of
Village Jaitpur, Khasra No.337/2(4-12), 338(3-19) and 351 (1-18), total measuring
10 bighas 9 biswas. In my view, the appellants cannot be awarded compensation in
respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.337/2 only on the strength of the
aforesaid certificate when they did not produce any revenue record to prove that the
land comprised in the aforesaid Khasra was owned or possessed by them and
statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act which is prepared on the
basis revenue record clearly shows that they were not the recorded owner nor were
they in possession of the aforesaid land.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants also draws my attention to the order
dated 10.9.1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in
M/127/1974 where, the learned Additional District Judge, accepting that Nathu had
been in possession of the land in dispute during the relevant period and further
noticing that it had not been shown as to in what capacity he was in possession of
the said land, awarded 60% compensation to him. The learned counsel for the
appellants states that this order pertains to those very khasras which are the subject
matter of this appeal. However, there is nothing in this order to indicate that it
pertains to Khasra no.337/2 measuring 4 bigha 12 biswas, the land comprised in
Khasra no. 338 measuring 3 bigha 19 biswas and the land comprised in Khasra
no.351 measuring 1 bigha 18 biswas in Village Jaitpur. Therefore, no reliance on
the said order can be placed in the absence of documents such as Khasra
Girdhawari of the aforesaid Khasras. In any case, in view of statement under
Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act, the learned Additional District Judge was
absolutely justified in refusing compensation to the appellants. In fact, I fail to
appreciate why the appellants have not even attempted to produce the Khasra
Girdhawari or Jamabandi of the above referred Khasras. The impression I get is
that they have something to hide and that is why they are not coming forward with
the revenue record in respect of the above referred Khasras.
I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall
be no orders as to costs.
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 02, 2013
rd
