Delhi High Court
S. K. Sharma vs Gaon Sabha, Mundka & Anr. on 3 October, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA.APP. No. 268/2016
% 3rd October, 2016
S. K. SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. Mohit Kr. Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
GAON SABHA, MUNDKA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu
Jain, Advocate for R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. No. 36670/2016 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LA.APP. No.268/2016 and C.M. Appl. No.36669/2016 (for stay u/S 151
CPC)
1. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 is filed by the appellant, who was Interested Person no.2 in the Trial
Court, against the impugned Judgment dated 5.7.2016 which has dismissed the
claim of the appellant and allowed the claim of respondent no. 1/Gaon Sabha,
Mundka Village/I.P. no.1 with respect to compensation of Rs.3,22,484/- of
acquired land falling in Khasra No. 16//3, Village Mundka, Delhi.
2. The case of the appellant/I.P. no. 2 was that he purchased the
subject property in 12 biswas, i.e 600 sq. yards of land from one Sh. Ashok
Sachdeva vide documents dated 11.1.1996 and Sh. Ashok Sachdeva himself had
purchased the property from the recorded owners being the sons of Sh. Badle
vide documents dated 21.9.1992. Accordingly, the appellant/I.P. no.2 prayed
that the compensation be released to him and not to I.P. no. 1/Gaon Sabha.
3. After framing the sole issue on 16.9.2013 as to who was entitled to
compensation, the trial court held that the appellant/I.P. no.2 was not entitled to
compensation, but the respondent no. 1/Gaon Sabha/I.P. no.1 was entitled to
compensation because the land is shown to be owned by Gaon Sabha in the
khatoni for the year 2005-06 which was proved by respondent no. 1/I.P. no.1
before the trial court as Ex.IP1W/1. The issue no. 1 has been found in favour of
respondent no. 1/I.P. no. 1 and against the appellant/I.P. no. 2 by the trial court
by observing as under:-
"16. Issue No.1
IP No.1 Gram Sabha on the basis of testimony of IP1W/1 Sh. Rajesh
Kumar, Halka Patwari proved the copy of Khatoni pertaining to year 2005-
2006 Ex.IP1W/1 pertaining to the land in question i.e Khasra No.16//3 min (0-
12) Village Mundka stands in the name of Gram Sabha in the Revenue Record.
17. IP No.2 examined IP2W1 Sh. S.K. Sharma who proved registered
GPA Ex.IP2W1/1 dated 11.01.1996 executed by one Sh. Ashok Sachdeva in
favour of IP No.2 and one rent agreement Ex.IP2W2/4 between IP No.2 Sh.
S.K. Sharma and one Sh. Chandewshwar Yadav dated 25.11.2003. No
revenue record or document proved how Sh. Ashok Sachdeva became the
owner and in possession of the land in question. Photocopies of GPA of one
Sh. Dharam Bir Singh, Om Bir Singh and Ranbir Singh filed but no original
proved on record. No revenue record filed which proves that the above said
three person were the owners of the land in question and competent to transfer
the land in question to Ashok Sachdeva. There is no Revenue record proved
on record showing that IP No.2 ever entered his name in the Revenue Record
after alleged transaction. On the other hand Gram Sabha has proved the
Revenue record Ex.IP1W1/1.
18. On the basis of above observation and discussion IP No.2 failed to
prove the ownership and possession of Khasra No.16//3 min (0-12). IP No.1
Gram Sabha established the ownership of possession till the acquisition,
therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of IP No.1 Gram Sabha and against
IP No.2, Sh. S.K. Sharma."
4. I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial court
because even if the appellant/I.P. no.2 had purchased the land from one Sh.
Ashok Sachdeva and Sh. Ashok Sachdeva is claimed to have purchased the land
from the sons of Sh. Badle, however, the fact of the matter is that the case of
I.P. no. 1/respondent no. 1 herein was that the suit land vested in Gaon Sabha
under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and consequently, in the
revenue record/khatoni for the year 2005-06 the suit land is shown as owned by
respondent no. 1/I.P. no.1. Ownership of land, on the issue of vesting or
otherwise under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, only becomes clear
from the revenue record and it is seen that the appellant/I.P. no.2 led no
evidence of the revenue record as to the suit land continuing to vest in his
predecessors-in-interest and thereafter to the appellant/I.P. no.2 as per such
revenue record, and therefore, the court below has rightly held that the suit land
is owned by respondent no.1/I.P. no.1/Gaon Sabha, and hence which is entitled
to compensation with respect to the acquisition of the subject land.
Appellant/I.P. no. 2 cannot be held to be the owner because appellant/I.P. no. 2
has failed to prove that his predecessors-in-interest by virtue of which revenue
record were the owners, and how they continued to be the owners by reference
to the revenue record, whereas on the contrary the respondent no.1/I.P. no.1 has
shown its ownership by reference to the revenue record/khatoni, and which
position would not have been so in case the appellant/I.P. no. 2 or his
predecessors-in-interest were and continued to be shown as owners in the
revenue record.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in the above terms.
OCTOBER 03, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
