( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of RFAs No. 309, 310, 356. 357, 340 and 341. all of 1980 All these appeals are directed against the judgment dated May 20, 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the two references made to the Additional District Judge by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act were decided. One reference was in respect of award No. 2040 involving 721 bighas and second reference was in respect of award No. 2225 involving 3945 bighas and biswas.

( 2 ). There were three sets of claimants before the Additional District Judge, The first set was of Gaon Sabha Masoodpur. The claim of Gaon Sabha was based on the allegations that the land in the awards was lying waste in the year 195054 and as such ilvested in the Gaon Sabha under orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi in the year 1954, and thereafter by another order of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi dated 10 3. 1966 which was published in the official gazette of Delhi Administration. It was further pleaded that Gaon Sabba was in possession of the land in question at the time of the announcing of the award and that the decree passed by the court of Shri A. N. Aggarwal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 12. 121966 in suit No. 174 of 1966 and subsequently confirmed in appeal in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundri was without jurisdiction, ultra vires, null and void.

( 3 ). The second set of claimants was of proprietors. The proprietors also claimed compensation on more or less similar grounds and it was pleaded that ihe land in question was not the land as defined in Delhi Land Reforms Act; the land is in their holding: the bhumidari declaration made in favour of Smt Gulab Sundri was invalid because the land was used for mining purposes and purposes other man. those mentioned in Section 3 (13) of the Act, and, therefore, Smt. Gulab Sundri and her transferees were not entitled to the award of compensation and the droprietors were entitled to receive the entire compensation.

( 4 ). The third set of claimants was that of Smt. Gulab Sundri and her transferees. They claimed title to the land on the ground that the bhumidari declaration was made in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundri, proprietor of Kesar Singh Budh Singh who was a sub-tenant . of the entire land of 4037 big has and 18 biswas since the year 1942 as recorded in the revenue records and in particular during the fasli, 1953-54 etc:, and that the ownership rights of the proprietors/claimants stood abolished on the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and there were no proprietors or owners and as such no ownership rights could be claimed by any other person much less the proprietors/claimants as they were left with no right or interest etc , in the land.

( 5 ). Some of the owners/proprietors disputed the claim of Gaon Sabha in their written statements on the allegations that the land in question did not vest in the Gaon Sabha vide an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14 7. 1958 because in the suit filed by them against the Gaon Sabha the learned subordinate Judge had declared that the order of the revenue assistant was wrong, illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and that the suit land was not a waste land and further that Gaon Sabha had no right or interest of any nature in the suit land. The first appeal as also the second appeal filed by Gaon Sabha against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge were dismissed and as such the claim of Gaon Sabha was barred by the principle of res-judicata. Similarly, the claim of owners was disputed by Smt. Gulab Sundri and her transferees/asamees on the pleas that the bhumidari declaration in their favour was never challenged by the proprietors and the bhumidari declaration in her favour had become final and conclusive and on the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act the rights of the proprietors had been abolished and no person could claim any right in the land as proprietors bec