Delhi High Court
Sumit Modi vs Uoi & Anr on 23 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd July, 2018
+ LA.APP. 103/2017, CM No.9631/2017 (u/S 151 CPC for
stay)
SUMIT MODI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Manish Vats, Advocate
Versus
UOI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pawan Kumar Gangwal,
Adv. for Mr.Pramod Kumar,
Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
impugns the judgment [dated 11th November, 2016 in LAC
No.20A/13 (new No.83/16) of the Court of Additional District Judge-
02, West, Delhi] in a Reference under Section 30-31 of the Act
apportioning the compensation for acquisition of land measuring 1
bigha 10 biswas in Khasra No.64/16 (1-10) of village Mundka equally
between the appellant and the respondent No.2/ Gram Sabha, Mundka.
2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 10th March, 2017
when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and trial court record
requisitioned. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent
No.2 and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the appellant. The
counsel for the appellant has been heard and the trial court record
requisitioned perused.
3. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gangwal, advocate appears and states that he
does not know anything about the case and he is appearing as a proxy
LA.APP. No.103/2017 Page 1 of 4
for Mr.Pramod Kumar, advocate for Gram Sabha, Mundka who has
chosen not to appear. The appearance of Mr.Gangwal is no
appearance in law and Mr.Pramod Kumar, advocate having chosen not
to appear inspite of having accepted the panel, cannot be awaited any
further.
4. The admitted position is:
(i) the land aforesaid has been proved by the Kanoongo to be
recorded in the name of one Vijay Kumar;
(ii) the appellant, inspite of purchase, did not get the land mutated
in the revenue records in his favour;
(iii) the Office Kanoongo aforesaid also proved that the land
aforesaid stood vested in the name of Gram Sabha under
Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; and,
(iv) at the time of acquisition in the year 2005-06, the land was in
the name of respondent No.2/Gram Sabha and possession of the
land in pursuance to acquisition was taken in the year 2007
from the Gram Sabha.
5. The counsel for the appellant, on enquiry as to why the
appellant, inspite of purchase, did not get the land mutated in his
favour, states that the appellant is a layman. However, on further
enquiry as to why a layman was purchasing agricultural land, no
answer is forthcoming.
6. The case of the appellant before the Reference Court also was
that he was neither aware of proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act with respect to the land nor aware of the
acquisition of the land.
LA.APP. No.103/2017 Page 2 of 4
7. The only argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the
respondent No.2/Gram Sabha, along with its counter affidavit to the
appeal, has filed khasra girdawari showing the land to be still in
possession of the Gram Sabha and therefrom it is evident that the
entries in the revenue record are unreliable. It is argued that the
appellant was in possession of the land and possession, pursuant to
acquisition, was taken from him.
8. However, neither any document to show that possession, at the
time of acquisition, was taken from the appellant was proved before
the Reference Court nor is any produced before this Court and only an
argument to the said effect is being made. In fact, the counter
affidavit on the record of this Court is not even accompanied with any
annexures, though para 3 thereof states that khatoni of the year 2005-
06 and 2015-16 was being annexed thereto. The counsel for the
appellant states that copies of the annexures were however supplied to
him.
9. A perusal of the Reference Court file shows the appellant to
have, in his cross-examination, stated that he had not received any
notice from Land Acquisition Collector before acquisition of land in
question though he was aware of the acquisition notification. He
further deposed that he was not supposed to verify the revenue record
of the land in question and he had no proof of being in possession of
the land except the sale deed. The other witness examined by the
appellant, i.e. Kanoongo also admitted that the land was shown in the
khata of Gram Sabha and no other person had any title over the land in
question.
LA.APP. No.103/2017 Page 3 of 4
10. In the aforesaid state of affairs, it is felt that the appellant is
lucky that the Reference Court has awarded 50% of the compensation
for acquisition of the land to be paid to the appellant inasmuch as the
rights in the land are on the basis of mutation in revenue records of the
land and the appellant having allowed the land to stand in the name of
the Gram Sabha for over ten years prior to the acquisition of the land
and the land at the time of acquisition being recorded in the name of
the Gram Sabha, the appellant could not have laid any claim for
compensation. Rather, it is inexplicable as to why the Gram Sabha,
Mundka has not filed any appeal against the order (the counsel for the
appellant states that no appeal has been filed and Mr.Gangwal,
advocate appearing for the respondent has no knowledge).
11. There is thus no merit in the appeal.
12. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 23, 2018
'PK'..
