The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly regarding the definition of 'waste land' and 'holding', and its application to the vesting of land in Gaon Sabha.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 22. 2. 1986 of Mr. GS. Dakha, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in LAC No. 257 of 1984 on a reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, by the Land Acquisition Collector. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to the compensation of the subject land acquired under the aforesaid Act and award given,

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details the facts lie in a very narrow compass. The land in question came to be vested in the Gaon Sabha of Village Tekh and by notification under Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (. for short act ) In that the revenue records it was described as gair mumkin pahar . The appellants are some of the original owners of the land and some the vendees thereof. On coming to know of the vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha the owners filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, on 22. 11. 1967 fora declaration that the vesting of land in Gaon Sabha was not legal. Both Gaon Sabha and Union of India were parties to the suit. The suit was decreed by a learned Sub Judge on 29. 8. 1968 in favour of the owners. The Gaon Sabha and Union of India filed an appeal against the judgment and decree and it was dismissed by the then Senior Sub-Judge on 17. 11. 1971. A second appeal to this Court was also dismissed on 22. 5. 1980. Two of the issues raised in that suit were : (1) Has the civil Court no jurisdiction to try the suit ? and (2) Whether the order of Revenue Assistant vesting the suit land in the Gaon Sabha is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction and its effect ? The issues were held in favour of the owner and against the Gaon Sabha all through. However, the second appeal which was decided by this Court was R. S. A. 73/72 and it was decided on May 5, 1980. This Court held that the decisions of the Court below were perfectly legal in holding that the order under challange was beyond the scope of the Act and was, therefore, ultra vires and liable to be quashed and that the declaration was rightly granted in favour of the owners. The Court, however, observed that the Deputy Commissioner was still authorised to reconsider the matter in dispute and decide the same after giving the parties opportunity of being heard and after considering the facts of the case he could determine whether the land in question was waste land or land of common utility which could vest in the Gaon Sabha. The learned Judge also said that it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner also to find whether the land or any part thereof was within the holding of any one of the individual proprietors since a very large area of the land was involved and the suit was representative suit on behalf of many persons, and some part of the land might be waste land and some under proprietory cultivation and yet some part of land was not covered by the definition of "waste land" or "land of. common utility" or still it might be that- all the lands were not covered by the definition. This Court, therefore, struck down the order vesting of the land in favour of Gaon Sabha leaving the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. It is not disputed that the matter has not been reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner and the order declaring that the vesting of land in favour of Gaon Sabha was illegal stands.

( 3 ) NOW when the award acquiring the land in question was given the Gaon Sabha still raised disputes slating that the aforesaid judgment in, RSA 73/72 was not final and the land rightly vested in the Gaon Sabha and therefore, Gaon Sabha was entitled to compensation. This dispute was, there- fore, REFERRED TO by the learned Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge which, as noted above, was decided in favour of the Gaon Sabha. Now this appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, raised a preliminary objection that since a civil Court has no jurisdiction i