Back
2004 Supreme(SC) 369
2004(3) Supreme 80
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Gaon Sabha and Anr. -Appellants
versus
Nathi and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3105 of 1997
With
C.A. No. 2183 of 1993
Decided on 23-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents : B.S. Malik, P.N. Lekhi, R.K. Jain, M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocates, L.C. Chechi, Subhash Mittal, Lokesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Y.D. Nagar, Manoj Nagar, S.C. Mittal, N.S. Chechi, K.S. Rana, Saurabh Kirpal, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
With the enforcement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the proprietors and the concept of proprietors of land stands totally abolished.
Headnote:Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954-Sections 3(11a), (12A), 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15 and 154-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 6-Vesting of certain lands in Gaon Sabha-Acquisition of land-Dispute arose regarding the right to receive compensation between the Gaon Sabha and private respondents-Land recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar-Case of Gaon Sabha that land being Gair Mumkin Pahar it had vested in it-Respondents, private parties pleaded that they were owners/proprietors of those lands-Respondents neither claimed to be Bhumidhar nor an Asami of the land which has been acquired-Land stood vested with Gaon Sabha-Gaon Sabha held entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation.
Held : The legal position is absolutely clear that a person can be either a Bhumidhar or an Asami of the agricultural land in a village. He can also be an owner, of the property of the type which is enumerated in Section 8 of the Act, like private wells, tanks, groves, abadis, trees and buildings. Except for these, all other kinds of lands and property would vest in the Gaon Sabha. The proprietors and the concept of proprietors of land stands totally abolished with the enforcement of the Act. The respondents neither claimed to be Bhumidhar nor an Asami of the land which has been acquired. The acquired land does not come within the purview of Section 8 of the Act. In such circumstances the only inference possible is that the land stood vested with the Gaon Sabha on the date of the commencement of the Act and it was the Gaon Sabha which was the owner thereof and was entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. (Para 11)
What was the precise case set up by the respondents can be ascertained from the objection which was filed by them before the Land Acquisition Collector (ME), Delhi in response to the pubic notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 18)
In para 2 it is stated that the land was wrongly and illegally shown in the revenue record of Gaon Sabha Tehkhand and on its dissolution and urbanisation of revenue estate, in the name of Union of India. In para 3 it is stated that some of the co-sharers in their representative capacity filed a civil suit for a declaration that the Gaon Sabha is not the owner of the land and the said suit was decreed up to the stage of second appeal by the High Court and in para 4, mention is made of the writ petition which was filed in Delhi High Court. Para 5 contains the prayer clause that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. The respondents have made the claim for compensation mainly on the ground that they are owners or proprietors of the acquired land. They do not claim to be Bhumidhar or Asami thereof. As discussed earlier, with the enforcement of the Act the very concept of proprietorship stands abolished and, therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J.-Civil Appeal No. 3105 of 1997 has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and another against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1991 of Delhi High Court in RFA No. 209 of 1986. Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 1993 has been preferred by Union of India and another against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1991 of Delhi High Court in RFA No. 167 of 1986. The controversy involved in both the appeals is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 1993 was initially allowed by this Court on 7.2.1997 but the order was recalled on 25.7.2003 on the ground that some of the respondents had died and their heirs had not been brought on record when the matter was heard and decided at the earlier stage.
2. We will mention the facts of CA No. 3105 of 1997 which has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and Union of India against Nathi and 38 others. Proceedings for acquisition of a large tract of land were initiated by issuing notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made an award but a dispute arose regarding the right to receive compensation between the Gaon Sabha and the private respondents. He accordingly made seven references for decision of the Court under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge decided all the seven references by common judgment and order dated 22.2.1986 wherein he held that it was the Gaon Sabha which was entitled to receive the compensation amount and not the private respondents. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award decree of the Addl. District Judge, Nathi and others preferred RFA No. 209 of 1986 before Delhi High Court. The High Court, following its earlier judgment and decree dated 30.5.1991 in RFA No. 167 of 1986 given in the case of Sher Singh & Ors. allowed the appeal on 7.11.1991 by a short order and held that the respondents were entitled to entire amount of compensation and not the Gaon Sabha. It is this judgment and decree which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal which has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and Union of India.
3. In view of the fact that the impugned judgment does not deal with the controversy raised and the High Court has allowed the appeal only on the basis of its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Sher Singh & Ors. in RFA No. 167 of 1986, it becomes necessary to look to the reasoning given for deciding the said matter. Even otherwise the judgment and order dated 30.5.1991 in RFA No. 167 of 1986 is under challenge in CA No. 2183 of 1993 filed by Union of India.
4. The land in dispute is situate in village Tekhand and in khasra girdwari it was recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar. The case of Gaon Sabha was that the land being Gair Mumkin Pahar it had had vested in it under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), that it was in possession over the land when the same was acquired and that the government took possession of the land from the Gaon Sabha. The respondents herein (private parties) pleaded that as the land was Gair Mumkin Pahar it could not vest in the Gaon Sabha and they were owners/proprietors of the same. Sher Singh and Ors. further submitted that there had been a prior litigation regarding title of the land in dispute in the civil court wherein a decree had been passed in their favour. The Gaon Sabha however relied upon a judgment dated 8.12.1982 of Delhi High Court (Justice M.L. Jain) in CWP No. 1019 of 1972 wherein it was held that land recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar is waste land which would vest in the Gaon Sabha. The Addl. District Judge chose to follow the later judgment delivered in the writ petition and further held that in the civil suit ultimately the High Court in second appeal (RSA No. 73 of 1972) had remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Deputy Commissioner and as such there was no final determination of the rights of the property. Accordingly it was held that the Gaon Sabha was entitl
