[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Jangli (Since Deceased) Thr His Legal ... vs The State & Ors on 10 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:10.12.2025
+ FAO 259/2015
JANGLI (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu and Mr. Abhishek,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE & ORS
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Roopansh Purohit and Ms.
Narayani Sepaha, Advocates.
+ LA.APP. 500/2015 & CM APPL 42185/2023
JANGLI THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu and Mr. Abhishek,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Divakar
Kapil, Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak
Advocate for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Roopansh Purohit and Ms.
Narayani Sepaha, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified FAO 259/2015 & LA.APP. 500/2015 Page 1 of 29
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:10.12.2025
11:45:26
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (the ISA) read with Section 104 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), filed by the legal heirs of the
original petitioner, viz Jangli (Jangli), in MPC No. 21/2006
aggrieved by judgment dated 28.08.2004 of the Additional District
Judge (Central), Delhi by which a Letter of Administration (LoA)
granted in favour of the petitioner was revoked.
2. In this appeal, unless otherwise specified, the parties will
be referred to as described in the original petition.
3. In the application under Section 263 of the ISA filed for
revocation of the LoA, it was alleged thus:- A LoA was granted in
favour of the original petitioner, Jangli in respect of agricultural
land measuring 46 bighas 8 biswas comprising in Khasra nos.
48/2 (4-16), 3(4-16), 9(4-16), 147(0-05), 48/8/1 (3-0), 8/2 (1-16),
7(4-16), 4(4-16) totalling to 14 Bighas 8 Biswas and Khasra 52/18
(3-01), 22(4-16), 23(3-08), 53/2 (4-16), 3(3-13), 8(3-10), 12 (4-16)
total 31 Bighas 07 Biswas and Khasra no. 505 (0-09) situated in
revenue estate of the village Mamurpur, Delhi, being the estate of
deceased Chandgi @ Chander Bhan S/o Maya Ram. Chandgi @
Chander Bhan was survived by his wife Chander Wati, and
daughter Bimla. However, they were never impleaded as parties in
the petition filed for getting the LoA. Chandgi @ Chander Bhan
was not a bachelor, as was alleged by the petitioner in the
proceedings. This can be ascertained from the revenue records and
also from the decision of the Court of the Financial Commissioner,
Delhi, in the order dated 28.03.1980 in case No.13/79-CA, in
which Jangli and Chander Wati were the petitioners.
3.1 Out of the total land measuring 46 bighas 8 biswas, the
present applicants/objectors and Inder Singh had purchased 45
bighas 16 biswas of land from Chander Wati, the widow of
Chandgi @ Chander Bhan by way of four registered sale deeds, all
dated 10.04.1981, individually executed for 11 bighas 9 biswas of
land in favour of them as she was the owner/khatedar of the land in
question. On 13.05.1981, the revenue department effected
mutation in their names also. After the demise of Inder Singh, his
share has been mutated in the names of his sons, namely, Daryao
Singh and Joginder, that is, the applicant/ objectors no. 2 and 3.
Thus, the present applicants/objectors have become the owners of
total 45 bighas 16 biswas of land in question, out of which 31
bighas 7 biswas, situated in khasra no. 52 was sold by the
applicants to third parties, and they continue to remain the owners
of the remaining land measuring 14 bighas 9 biswas. The
applicants/objectors had also obtained sanction on 04.03.1991
from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to use a portion of land in
question as farm house and the same has been assessed as such by
the house tax department of the MCD. They had also obtained an
electricity connection in the name of the said land. Thereafter,
acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government of Delhi
by Notification No.F-11 (6) 99/L&B/LA dated 02.05.2001 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the land
in question and Award no. 28/2003/2004 was passed on
17.02.2004 in favour of the applicants/objectors. After getting non-
encumbrance certificate dated 27.09.2004 from the Tehsildar
Narela, Delhi, when one of the applicants on 29.09.2004 went to
the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Kanjhawla, Delhi, to
collect the cheques for the compensation amount accrued against
the acquisition of a land, they were informed that Jangli, had
obtained a LoA in respect of their land. Hence, the application
seeking revocation of the LoA granted in favour of Jangli.
3.2 It was further alleged that Jangli had intentionally,
wilfully, knowingly, fraudulently and deliberately filed an
incorrect schedule relating to the property as well as regarding the
relatives of deceased Chandgi @ Chander Bhan to obtain a LoA in
his favour. Chander Wati and Bimla, the legal heirs of Chandgi @
Chander Bhan, were deliberately not impleaded in the petition. It
was falsely pleaded/alleged that Jangli was the sole legal heir of
Chandgi @ Chander Bhan, who was alleged to have died a
bachelor and issueless. Chander Wati is still surviving and is
residing at her parental home, i.e., in Village Sirdhana, District
Sonepat, Haryana. However, her daughter Bimla is no more.
Jangli was well aware of the sale deeds executed by Chander Wati
as he was the joint khatedar having one-half share of land in
Khasra 48. Jangli had also sold his share in the year 1985 to third
parties. As the LoA was obtained by Jangli on the basis of false
submissions, the LoA vide order dated 26.04.2002 is liable to be
revoked/annulled. Hence, the petition.
3.3 In the reply to the aforesaid application, Jangli filed
counter contending thus:- The applicants/objectors have no right,
title or interest in the property for which the LoA has been granted
by the Court in his favour. The applicants/objectors are not the
legal heirs of Chandgi @ Chander Bhan. Chandgi @ Chander
Bhan, had only one brother, i.e. Jangli and a sister named Kala
Wati. Chandgi @ Chander Bhan was a bachelor, and he died
issueless, and so his entire estate, both movable and immovable,
was inherited by Jangli. The agricultural land left by the deceased
is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the DLR Act)
and hence Jangli became the bhumidar of the same.
3.4 It was further contended that no marriage between
Chandgi @ Chander Bhan and Chander Wati had ever taken place
at any point in time. Bimla is not the daughter of Chandgi @
Chander Bhan. In fact, Chander Wati is the wife of Ram Phal, S/o
Ram Singh, R/o village Sitawali, district Sonepath, Haryana. The
marriage between Ram Phal and Chander Wati was solemnised in
the year 1968 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and as such,
Chander Wati is the legally wedded wife of Ram Phal. The sale
deeds dated 10.04.1981 relied on by the applicants/objectors are
forged, fabricated and manipulated documents and have no legal
consequence, and the same are not binding on Jangli. Chander
Wati had never inherited the properties of Chandgi @ Chander
Bhan and, therefore, she could not have executed the sale deeds in
favour of the applicants/objectors. Jangli was the sole legal heir of
his brother Chandgi @ Chander Bhan and therefore, the Court had
rightly granted the LoA in his favour, which suffers from no
infirmity. Hence, it was contended that the petition filed for
revocation of the LoA was liable to be dismissed.
3.5 On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were raised
by the trial court. The parties went to trial on the basis of the
abovesaid pleadings. On behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 to PW-8
were examined, and exhibits PW-1/A, PW-2/A to PW-2/B, PW-
3/1 to PW-3/3, PW-4/1 to PW-4/2, PW-5/1 to PW-5/6, PW-6/1 to
PW-6/2 and PW-7/X were marked. On behalf of the
applicants/objectors, RW-1 to RW-11 were examined, and exhibits
EX/OW1/1 to EX/OW/1/48 were marked. The trial court, on
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after
hearing both sides, held that the grant of LoA required revocation
as it was found from the materials on record that there was in fact
concealment of material facts and also non-joinder of necessary
parties. Aggrieved, Jangli has come up in appeal.
3.6 Jangli, the original petitioner died during the pendency of
the proceedings, and hence his legal heirs, namely, his wife and
children, have been impleaded as the additional appellants.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that though the applicants/ objectors had cited Chander Wati and
Ram Phal as witnesses in their witness list, no steps were taken to
examine them for, which no reason(s) has been furnished. This is
one aspect that needs to be doubted. On the other hand, the
petitioners have examined PW-1 to PW-8 and through their
testimony and the documents produced, have proved that Chandra
Wati @ Chandro was the daughter of Chandgi of Village
Sardhana, Sonepat, Haryana and was married to Ram Phal.
Though the petitioners had produced the necessary documents to
substantiate their case and proved it through the officials of the
departments concerned, the trial court ignored the same on the
ground that the documents had been obtained under the RTI Act
and that the same had not been proved. The fact that Chandra
Wati @ Chandro was the daughter of Chandgi of Village Sardhana
has been proved by the production of the voter list and the
statement of Chandra Wati herself that she is residing at her
parental house in Sardhana. On the other hand, the evidence let in
by the applicants/ objectors is only hearsay evidence. The trial
court went wrong in concluding that the materials on record
proved that Chandra Wati @ Chandro died in the year 1973. The
trial court also went wrong in holding that Chandra Wati @
Chandro, W/o Chandgi and W/o Ramphal are not one and the
same person, but different persons. Ram Phal, the husband of
Chandra Wati had falsely given a declaration to the authorities
concerned that his wife had died. The authorities concerned even
without Ram Phal producing a death certificate, recorded in the
service book of Ram Phal that his wife Chandra Wati was no
more. It was also submitted that for argument sake, even if it is
assumed that Chandra Wati @ Chandro was married to Chandgi,
still the applicants/ objectors would derive no right to the land in
question. The share of Chandgi @ Chander Bhan was supposed to
have been mutated in the name of his wife Chandra Wati @
Chandro and their daughter Bimla. But Bimla died a minor and
hence, in the light of Section 51(1) of the DLR Act, the latter's
share devolved on the male descendent of her father, namely,
Jangli. Chandra Wati @ Chandro had no right to transfer the land
in question in view of Sections 50 and 51(1) of the DLR Act and
so the transaction is totally illegal. It was also pointed out that
there was no valid divorce between Chandra Wati and Ram Phal
and hence, the purported marriage of Chandra Wati with Chandgi
@ Chander Bhan was a nullity. There has been no concealment or
misrepresentation of facts by Jangli and, therefore, no grounds
have been made out for revocation of the LoA, goes the argument.
5. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for
respondents no. 2 to 4, i.e. the applicants/ objectors that Jangli
played fraud by misleading the Court that his brother Chander
Bhan died a bachelor and issueless, when he was in fact survived
by his wife and daughter. It was falsely contended that Jangli and
his sister Kala Wati were the only siblings of Chander Bhan.
Further, LoA can be granted only in respect of the whole or any
part of the estate of a deceased. However, in the case on hand,
when the application for grant of LoA was moved by Jangli, the
deceased Chander Bhan, had no interest whatsoever left in the
estate in respect of which the LoA was granted. Land measuring
45 bigha 11 biswa came to the share of Chandra Wati @ Chandro
and her daughter Bimla. After the death of Bimla, her share
reverted to her mother Chandra Wati. A portion of the property
was sold by Chandra Wati to the applicants/ objectors. Jangli filed
the petition for grant of LoA after 22 years of the death of his
brother Chander Bhan, which in itself is a suspicious circumstance.
Jangli, in support of his case, had produced very old khatoni of the
year 1973-74, though the khatonis for the year 1977-78, 1984 and
2001 were available. The LoA was obtained by concealment of
revenue records which would have shown the applicants'/
objectors' share in the property. The materials on record,
conclusively prove that pursuant to the sale deeds being executed
in favour of the applicants/ objectors, mutation had also been
effected in their favour, pursuant to which they had sold an extent
of 31 bigha 07 biswas to one Jugal Batra and his three brothers,
who in turn sold the property to M/s Vikram Impex (Private) Ltd.
The said land was thereafter acquired as per Award No. 24/2002-
2003. Compensation was assessed in the name of the vendees, who
received the amount without any objection. Materials on record
will clearly reveal that the LoA was obtained by Jangli by
misrepresentation and concealment of facts and, therefore, the trial
court was justified in revoking the grant of LoA. The impugned
order suffers from no infirmity calling for an interference by this
Court, submits the learned counsel for the applicants/ objectors.
6. I briefly refer to the evidence on record in this case. PW-1
is one of the grandsons of the original petitioner. However, a
reading of the testimony of PW-1 would show that he has no direct
knowledge about the transactions involved and that he has only
hearsay knowledge about the same.
6.1 PW-2, Hawaldar, Records, Rajputana Rifles, Delhi
Cantonment was examined to prove the service records of Ram
Phal (Nayak) S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o Village Sitawali, Tehsil
Sonepat, Haryana. PW-2 deposed that Ram Phal had retired on
28.02.1991. As per records, Ram Phal had nominated his wife,
namely, Chandro who, as per the records, is stated to have died on
10.03.1973. PW-2 deposed that it was based on the declaration,
namely, Ex. PW-2/B given by Ram Phal, the death of his wife had
been recorded in his service records marked as PW-2/A. PW-2
further deposed that as per service records, Ram Phal had
thereafter married one Nani and the said entry was effected in the
records on 07.07.1976.
6.2 PW-3, ASI Rajbir Singh, S.P. Office, Sonepat was
examined to prove the statement of witnesses that was recorded in
the course of investigation conducted relating to a police complaint
that was given by Jangli against Ram Phal and Chandra Wati. The
witness produced the statements of Ram Phal and Chandra Wati
which was recorded by ASI, Gohana Police Station. Ram Phal is
seen to have stated that he married Chandra Wati @ Chandro,
daughter of Chandgi Ram, R/o Sardhana in the year 1968; that due
to differences of opinion, they separated as per the decision of their
relatives and Panchayat and thereafter he entered into a second
marriage with one Nani D/o Matu Ram Jat, R/o Gumana. Ram
Phal has further stated that his first wife Chandro thereafter
married a person from Narela, who died and that Chandro is
presently living in Village Sardhana. Chandra Wati @ Chandro, in
her statement has stated that she is a resident of Village Sardhana
and that she is receiving pension as widow of Chandgi @ Chander
Bhan S/o Maya Ram, R/o Village Mamurpur, Nai Basi, Narela,
Delhi. There is also the statement of Jangli Ram in which he states
that he had filed an application to stop the pension of Chandro @
Chandra Wati, pursuant to which the pension was stopped. There
are also statements of the residents of Village Sardhana confirming
that Chandro @ Chandra Wati D/o Chandgi was receiving widow
pension as widow of Chandgi @ Chander Bhan. Among the
statements produced, the statement of the Sarpanch of Village
Sardhana is also seen in which he has stated that Chandro @
Chandra Wati, is a resident of his village and that she has been
receiving pension as widow of Chandgi @ Chander Bhan. The
report after investigation into the complaint of Jangli is also seen
produced by the witness. In the said report, it is stated that the
marriage of Chandra Wati was solemnized with Ram Phal in the
year 1968 and that as per the decision of the Panchayat, they had
divorced. Thereafter, Chandra Wati married Chander Bhan S/o
Maya Ram, R/o Village Mamurpur Pana, Nai Basi, Narela, who
died and that Chandra Wati is receiving widow pension.
6.3 PW-4, LDC, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat,
Haryana was examined to prove the action taken report on the
complaint dated 17.07.2006 moved by Jangli. In the documents
produced by the witness, it is seen that pursuant to the complaint, a
report from the Social Welfare Officer, Sonepat was called for in
the matter and as per their report Chandro @ Chandra Wati was
receiving pension till the month of May 2006. Thereafter, the
Department concerned stopped the pension from June 2006.
6.4 PW-5, Assistant Civil Registration, Office of Civil
Surgeon Office, Sonepat, Haryana was examined to prove the
entries in the birth and death register during the period from 1971
to 1976. He deposed that there is no entry in the name of Chandro
@ Chandra Wati W/o Ram Phal, R/o Village Sitawali for the
aforesaid period.
6.5 PW-6, an official of the District Election Office, Sonepat
was examined to prove the voter list marked as Ex. PW-6/1 and
PW-6/2. Entry no. 297 and 299, in the said voters list shows the
name of Chandgi and Chandra Wati.
6.6 The testimony of PW-7, a resident of Village Sitawali
does not in any way advance the case of the petitioners.
6.7 PW-8, Sarpanch of Village Sitawali till the year 1991
deposed that Ram Phal, an ex-army man is a resident of his village.
He does not know the name of Ram Phal's wife though he knows
that Ram Phal was married. However, PW-8 admitted that he had
issued a certificate, which was marked 'X', in which it is stated
that Ram Phal S/o Ram Singh, R/o Village Sitawali, Sonepat,
Haryana is married to Chandro @ Chandra Wati D/o Sh. Chandgi
R/o Village Sardhana, District Sonepat, Haryana in the year 1968.
7. Now coming to the evidence let in by the applicants/
objectors. RW-1, LDC, Office of Chief Election Commissioner,
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi was examined to prove the voters list of the
year 1980 of East Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. According to
RW-1, as per the voters list of polling booth no. 176, Nai Basti,
Mamurpur, Narela Delhi, the name of Jangli Ram S/o Maya Ram
is at serial no. 107. At serial no. 117, is Chandre S/o Maya Ram
and at serial no. 118, is Chandro W/o Chandre. The voters list was
marked as Ex. RW-1/OW1/48.
7.1 RW-2, Section Officer, Accounts, NDPL, Narela was
discharged as he had not produced the documents that were
required in the case.
7.2 RW-3, Sub-Registrar, Narela Zone was examined to
prove the birth and death record of the year 1978. He deposed that
as per records, entry no. 153 recorded on 13.06.1978 shows that a
girl child named Bimla was born to Chander Bhan and Chander
Wati on 05.06.1978. The address of the parents is - Nai Basti,
Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi.
7.3 RW-4, UDC, Court of Financial Commissioner, Sham
Nath Marg produced and proved the certified copies of the file
relating to case no. 13/79-CA which was marked as Ex.
RW4/OW1/45 to Ex. RW4/OW1/47. A perusal of the file shows
that in a revision filed under Sections 187 of the DLR Act, which
was against the dismissal of a suit filed under Section 84 of the
DLR Act, Jangli and his brother Chander Bhan were the
petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, Chander
Bhan died and on an application moved by Chander Wati, she was
impleaded in the proceedings as the legal heir/representative of
Chander Bhan vide order dated 17.02.1979.
7.4 RW-5 was examined to prove Ex. RW5/OW1/28, the
sanction granted under Section 336 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 to the applicants/objectors for construction
of a farm house in Khasra No.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9/29, village
Mahmoarpur, Delhi.
7.5 RW-6, Patwari, Record Room, Kanoongo Branch, Tehsil
Building Tis Hazari, Delhi was examined to prove the khatoni
record of khasra no. 48-2-3-9 and 147. The said document has
been marked as Ex. OW1/1. The record of mutation relating to the
property has been marked as Ex. OW1/9. The records of khasra
girdawari running into 17 sheets have been marked as Ex.
OW1/17. RW-6 in his cross-examination deposed that the khatoni
has been recorded in the name of Jangli. Khatoni of khasra nos. 48
(2, 3, 9) and khasra no. 147, 4, 7, 8/1, 8(2) for the year 1997-98,
1983-84 and 2000-01 have been recorded in the name of Jangli
and Chander Bhan S/o Maya in equal shares for the period 1977-
78. After the death of Chander Bhan, the khatoni was recorded in
the name of Chander Wati, his widow and Bimla, his daughter in
equal shares. Thereafter, Bimla died and hence the khatoni was
recorded in the name of her mother Chander Wati. He also
deposed that mutation in respect of the said property has also been
effected.
7.6 RW-7, Patwari, Narela for the period from 2004 to 2006
deposed that khasra girdawari certificates 1/20 to 27 were issued
by him. According to him, the land in dispute was in khasra no. 48
(2, 3, 9, 7, 4 and 8/1 and 8/2) that it was acquired by Award no. 28
of 2003-04. As per records, with effect from 02.01.2004, half of
the aforesaid land stood mutated in the name of Jangli, S/o Maya
Ram.
7.7 RW-8, Patwari, DC Office Kanjawala Land Acquisition
Branch, who was directed to produce the record of Award no. 24
of 2003-04, deposed that there was no such Award for Village
Mamurpur. However, he produced Award no. 28 of 2003-04, the
certified copy of which has been marked as Ex. OW 1/40 to 43.
7.8 RW-9 deposed that as per sale deed dated 26.06.1989, he
along with his three brothers had purchased land measuring 31
bighas 7 biswas comprised in khasra no. 52/18 (3-01) 22(4-16),
23(3-08), 53/2(4-16), 3(3-13), 8(3-10), 12(4-16) and 13(3-03)
situated in the revenue estate of Mamurpur, Delhi from Inder
Singh S/o Maha Singh. Thereafter, they sold the land to M/s
Vikram Impex (Private) Ltd. by way of sale deed dated
19.05.2001, which land was thereafter acquired vide Award No.
24/2002-03, Mamurpur, Delhi. He further deposed that
compensation was received by M/s Vikram Impex (Private) Ltd.
from the Land Acquisition Collector, District North-West,
Kanjhawala, Delh and that no objection had been raised by any
one when compensation was disbursed to M/s Vikram Impex
(Private) Ltd.
7.9 RW-10, Patwari, DC Office, Kanjhawala, LAC produced
the file of Award no. 24/2002-03, Mamurpur. The certified copy
has been marked as Ex. OW1/39.
7.10 Finally, RW-11, Sector Officer, NDPL, Narela deposed
that electricity connection in khasra no. 48/2 has been given in the
name of Daryao Singh S/o Inder Singh bearing K.No. 129581.
The receipts regarding payment of electricity charges has been
marked as Ex. RW11/A.
8. It is true, as pointed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, that neither Chander Wati nor Ram Phal stated to be
alive were examined by the applicants/objectors though they were
arrayed as witnesses. However, the materials on record does raise
doubts in the mind of this Court as to whether Chandgi @ Chander
Bhan was actually a bachelor who died issueless as alleged by
Jangli and his sister Kala Wati in the application moved for
obtaining LoA. As per the service records of Ram Phal which
have been produced and marked through PW-2, he is seen to have
first married Chander Wati and thereafter, another lady named
Nani. The birth and death register entries show no entry relating to
the death of Chander Wati. Chander Wati continues to be alive.
The records reveal that it was merely on the basis of a declaration
given by Ram Phal, the authority concerned recorded in his service
record that his first wife was no more. It is seen that Jangli had
given a complaint to the authority concerned that though Chander
Wati was married and continues to be the wife of Ram Phal, she
has been receiving pension claiming to be wife of Chander Bhan.
It is seen pursuant to the complaint, the disbursement of pension to
Chander Wati was stopped. It appears from the materials on
record that Ram Phal had first married Chander Wati. Thereafter,
they separated as per the decision of the Panchayat concerned. It is
no doubt, true that the said "divorce" granted by the Panchayat
concerned is no divorce in the eye of law. But thereafter, Ram
Phal is seen to have married Nani. Chander Wati appears to have
married Chander Bhan. Whether the marriage between Chander
Wati and Ram Phal had been dissolved by a decree of the Court or
whether the marriage between Chander Wati and Chander Bhan
were valid in the eye of law are obviously not matters that were
required to be considered by a probate court.
9. Another disturbing aspect that needs to be noticed is the
year in which Jangli move for LoA. Admittedly, Chander Bhan
died in the year 1979. However, the petition for LoA is seen filed
in the year 2001, which is about 22 years after the death of
Chander Bhan. No explanation whatsoever is seen given for the
inordinate delay in moving for LoA. It was pointed out by the
learned counsel for the applicants/objectors that it was only when
the land was acquired, a move was made by Jangli for the first
time claiming to be the sole legal heir of his brother and moved the
probate court and fraudulently managed to obtain a LoA in his
favour by suppressing material facts. This argument is
substantiated by the materials on record. The Section 4 notification
for acquisition is seen dated 02.05.2001. Pursuant to the same, the
land was acquired and Exhibit OW1/39 is the Award dated
17.02.2004 passed in respect of the said acquisition.
10. Further, Exhibits RW4/OW1/45 to RW4/OW1/47
produced from the Court of the Financial Commissioner indicate
that after the death of Chander Bhan, it was Jangli and Chander
Wati who were prosecuting the proceedings before the said court.
In the said proceedings when Chander Wati got herself impleaded
as the legal heir/representative of Chander Bhan way back in the
year 1979, Jangli never objected to the same. In such
circumstances, he cannot be heard to contend that he never knew
that Chander Wati was dealing with the share of the property that
belonged to his brother Chander Bhan. If Jangli had a case that his
brother, Chander Bhan had died a bachelor and issueless and that
Chander Wati, a complete stranger was trying to meddle in the
estate of his brother, he ought to have approached the civil court
and obtained necessary relief. Instead, he seemed to have adopted
the easier way of obtaining a LoA by not impleading the legal
heirs of his brother Chander Bhan and by concealing facts. In such
circumstances, I find that the trial court was justified in
concluding, based on the materials on record, that the LoA had
been obtained by concealing material facts. I find no infirmity in
the impugned judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
11. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
12. In view of the revocation of the LoA and the consequent
absence of any subsisting right in the acquired land, the
appellants/objectors can lay no claim to the compensation. The
LA.APP. 500/2015 shall also stand dismissed.
13. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 10 , 2025
p'ma/kd/RN
