Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Union of India And Another - Appellant
Versus
M/s. K.C. Sharma And Co. And Others - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9049-9053 of 2011
Decided On : 14-08-2020
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 30 and 31 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Acquisition of land – Fraudulent receipt of amount of compensation – High Court, by appreciating documentary and oral evidence on record, has come to conclusion that appellants-plaintiffs have not pleaded necessary particulars so as to show how fraud was committed upon court which decided reference under Sections 30 and 31 of Act – High Court also held that entries made in revenue records support plea of respondents that they continued in possession by cultivating land – In view of rival claims for compensation matter was referred under Sections 30 and 31 of Act and it was held that respondents are entitled to compensation to extent of 87% whereas Gaon Sabha was held entitled only to extent of 13% – Said judgment has become final – In auction Dy. Director approved acceptance of bid in favour of respondent for a period of five years – Thereafter respondent was put in possession and he continued in possession by paying bid amount to Gram Panchayat – Revenue records produced also reveal that name of respondent was entered as possessor and cultivator – In light of such documentary evidence it cannot be said that lease was obtained by respondents in collusion with ex-Pradhan – In a given case whether such decree was obtained by fraud or not, is a matter which is to be judged with reference to pleadings and evidence on record – Fraud has to be pleaded and proved – More so, when a judgment and decree passed earlier by competent court is questioned, it is necessary to plead alleged fraud by necessary particulars and same has to be proved by cogent evidence – There cannot be any inference contrary to record – As evidence on record discloses that fraud, as pleaded, was not established, in absence of any necessary pleading giving particulars of fraud, no case is made out to interfere with well reasoned judgment of High Court – Defence under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available to a person who has agreement of lease in his favour though no lease has been executed and registered – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 6, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Union of India through Secretary (Revenue) and another, have filed these appeals aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A.Nos.204-8/2006. By impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed Regular First Appeals, preferred by respondents, by setting aside judgment and decree dated 04.01.2006 passed in Suit No.203 of 2005 by Addl. District Judge, Delhi.
Findings of Court:
When a judgment and decree passed earlier by the competent court is questioned, it is necessary to plead alleged fraud by necessary particulars and same has to be proved by cogent evidence. There cannot be any inference contrary to record. As the evidence on record discloses that fraud, as pleaded, was not established, in absence of any necessary pleading giving particulars of fraud, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court.
Result : Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. The Union of India through Secretary (Revenue) and another, have filed these appeals aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A.Nos.204-8/2006. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the Regular First Appeals, preferred by the respondents, by setting aside judgment and decree dated 04.01.2006 passed in Suit No.203 of 2005 by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi.
2. Necessary facts in brief are as under:
The land admeasuring 36 bighas 11 biswas comprising in Khasra Nos.14/9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20/1, 23 and 24 belonged to Gaon Sabha Luhar Heri, Delhi. The large extent of land in the village, including the aforesaid land, was acquired by the Government by initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 27.01.1984 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 20.09.1984. By passing the Award bearing No. 101/86-87 on 19.09.1986, possession of the land was taken by the Government. In the award proceedings, as the respondents have claimed compensation on the ground that the land was given to them on lease by Gaon Sabha, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, for apportionment of the amount of compensation. In the aforesaid reference proceedings, preferred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, it was the claim of the respondents that as the land was not fit for cultivation, it was granted on lease to the respondents to remove the "shora" and to make the land fit for cultivation. It is their case that in view of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha, they have spent huge amount for removal of "shora" and made the land fit for cultivation, and continued in possession by cultivating the same for more than 30 years. In the aforesaid proceedings referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the Civil Court has passed the judgment and decree on 28.09.1989, declaring that the respondents-claimants are entitled for compensation to the extent of 87% and remaining 13% is to be paid to the panchayat/Gaon Sabha.
3. Nearly after three years of the aforesaid judgment and decree in the proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, some villagers have filed Writ Petition No. 1408/1992 alleging that the respondents were not the lessees of the land in question and they have claimed compensation in collusion with ex-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court of Delhi on 21.02.1997. In the aforesaid order the High Court has permitted the Additional District Magistrate to intervene in the pending proceedings under Section 18 of the Act and place on record the available material to substantiate their case. At the same time it was kept open to the legal heirs of the original lessee to support their contention that there is a lease and they are entitled to claim compensation for the land acquired. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.02.1997 passed in the writ petition reads as under:
"We are not to be understood as deciding anything regarding the rights of the parties one way or the other. The A.D.M. is hereby directed to file his intervention application within one month from the date of receipt of this order and the leaned Addl. District Judge is directed not to dispose of the application for enhancement before a decision is rendered on the intervention application of the A.D.M. It will be open to the A.D.M. to consider, apart from intervention in the matter, whether any separate proceedings are to be initiated or not for the recovery of the compensation already paid."
4. In view of the observations made by the High Court in the writ petition, Gaon Sabha/ Panchayat has filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead it in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. In the aforesaid proceedings it was held that in view of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
