The judgment establishes the principle that ownership and entitlement to compensation for acquired land are determined based on the interpretation of legal provisions related to ownership, transfer of title, and vesting of land in Gaon Sabha under the Land Reforms Act.

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 20th February, 2016 in LAC No. 3A/12 Unique Case ID No. 02401C0333142012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge-02, West] on a reference under Sections 30&31 of the Act with respect to Award No. 13/DCW/2006-07, Village Mundka in regard to Khasra No. 64/16 min (0-10), 17/1 (1-6) as per enclosed Naksha Muntzamim along with compensation of Rs.9,10,826/-.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 31st May, 2016, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Vide order dated 21st October, 2016, Trial Court record was requisitioned. On 7th September, 2017, after some hearing, the record relating to the proceedings under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act, 1954, whereby the said land vested in Gaon Sabha, was requisitioned. The said record was not produced inspite of several opportunities. Ultimately, vide order dated 28th August, 2018, while giving last chance to produce the record, the personal presence of the District Magistrate (West) on the next date of hearing was also directed. On 4th October, 2018, the District Magistrate (West) appeared and submitted a report in the form of affidavit to the effect that the record could not be traced.

3. It was however contended by the counsel for the respondent no.1 on 4th October, 2018, that there was an admission of the appellant of proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and attention in this regard was drawn to grounds ‘D’ and ‘E’ of the memorandum of this appeal. The appeal, on 4th October, 2018, was posted for hearing for today.

4. The counsel of the appellant has been heard and the Trial Court record requisitioned perused.

5. Reference under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made for the reason “Dispute of ownership of said land” and naming the appellant Gurcharan Singh and Harvinder Singh, son of appellant Gurcharan Singh and the Gaon Sabha Mundka as the interested persons.

6. Gaon Sabha Mundka filed a claim petition before the Reference Court pleading (i) that the Gaon Sabha was the Bhumidhar/owner in possession of the subject land; copy of Khatoni was attached; (ii) that the land was vested in the Gaon Sabha vide orders/ proceedings of concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on finding violation of the provisions of Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act and the subject land, after vesting, was being used by Gaon Sabha; (iii) that the possession of the land was taken over from the Gaon Sabha on acquisition thereof; and, (iv) that the Gaon Sabha was the rightful owner to get the amount of compensation with respect to the subject land.

7. Harvinder Singh, son of the appellant Gurcharan Singh did not file any claim. The appellant Gurcharan Singh filed a reply to the claim of the Gaon Sabha and made his own claim pleading (a) that the land never remained in possession of the Gaon Sabha and the appellant only remained in possession thereof till the date of dispossession during the acquisition proceedings; (b) that the alleged proceedings under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act are vague and entry in the name of Gaon Sabha in revenue record was on the basis of vague proceedings under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act, which were non-est and the Gaon Sabha was not entitled to any compensation; (c) that the Gaon Sabha never took possession of the land under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act; (d) that the Gaon Sabha was not the Bhumidhar of the land and mutation entries in the revenue record do not confer any title on the Gaon Sabha; (e) that the appellant had purchased the subject land from one Smt. Parkash Wati vide registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 3rd May, 1995; (f) that Smt. Parkash Wati had purchased the land from recorded owner Smt. Sunita vide registered Sale Deed dated 20th November, 1991; (g) that the appellant had no knowledge whether any proceedings under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act had bee