Delhi High Court
Rai Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Anr. on 20 October, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA. APP. No.364/2015
% 20th October, 2016
RAI SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for
defendant No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is essentially filed against the
Judgment of the LAC Court dated 20.4.2005 whereby Sh. Rai Singh, Sh.
Sarup Singh and Sh. Ishwar Singh were held not entitled to compensation
because they had failed to show that they were the owners of the land
acquired by the Government. The first appeal also challenges the Order
dated 1.12.2014 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under
Sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for
correction of the record and the judgment for showing appellants as the
owners of the acquired land.
2. The claim petition of the appellants Sh. Rai Singh, Sh. Sarup
Singh (since deceased and represented by his legal heirs) and Sh. Ishwar
Singh was dismissed inasmuch as the original statement of the collector sent
to the LAC court under Section 19 of the Act did not contain the correct
description of Sh. Rai Singh, Sh. Sarup Singh and Sh. Ishwar Singh as sons
of Sh. Lahri. The names of these persons were depicted as sons of Sh. Hari
Singh. Appellants who are Sh. Rai Singh, legal heirs of late Sh. Sarup
Singh and Sh. Ishwar Singh made an error in failing to notice that in the
original statement under Section 19 of the Act furnished by the Collector
their parentage instead of being given of Sh. Lahri was wrongly given as of
Sh. Hari Singh. On account of the mistake in the Section 19 statement, the
LAC Court vide its Judgment dated 20.4.2005 did not grant any
compensation to the appellants by holding that appellants are not shown as
the owners of the acquired land. Appellants therefore on coming to know of
the mistake in the statement under Section 19 filed an application in LAC
Court in September, 2009 for correcting the judgment and record under
Sections 151 to 153 CPC which was passed on the mistaken reference under
Section 19 of the Collector wrongly showing the parentage of the appellants
as of Sh. Hari Singh instead of Sh. Lahri. This application has been
dismissed by the LAC Court vide its impugned Order dated 1.12.2014.
3. A reference to the record of the trial court shows that the
Collector has filed a revised statement under Section 19 of the Act on
5.10.2011 whereby effectively the Collector has admitted his mistake
because appellants are shown in this revised statement as sons of Sh. Lahri
and who have been paid compensation of Rs.96,172.23/- as per the Award
i.e the ownership of the appellants of the acquired land is not in dispute
because they have been given compensation for the acquired land of
Rs.96,172.23/-.
4. In view of the fact that there is a revised statement under
Section 19 by the Collector on 5.10.2011 showing that the appellants were
owners of the acquired land, therefore, actually the impugned Order dated
1.12.2014 ought to have corrected the original Judgment dated 20.4.2005 in
exercise of powers under Sections 152 and 153 CPC and which provisions
deal with scenarios which arise as found in the present case only because of
mistakes which have happened in a case. These Sections provide both for
correction of the judgment as also for the correction of the proceedings
which led to passing of the judgment.
5. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 1.12.2014 is set aside
and it is held that the appellants being the legal heirs of Sh. Lahri, and who
have been paid an amount of Rs.96,172.23/- as compensation for acquired
land by the Collector, therefore the appellants will also be entitled to
compensation at the same rate as given to the other owners of acquired land
as per the Judgment of the LAC Court dated 20.4.2005. Appellants will
also be entitled to appropriate and proportionate statutory benefits.
6. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 20, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
