IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Hari Singh (Deceased) Thr Lrs. - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
CM (M) 49, 50 & 67 of 2018 & CM APP. 1317, 1341 & 1713 of 2018
Decided On : 27-04-2020
Will - Land Acquisition Compensation Disbursement - Section 28 of LA Act, Section 23(1A) of the Act - The judgment discusses the validity and genuineness of a Will in the context of disbursing compensation for land acquisition. The court held that in Delhi, it is not compulsory to obtain a probate to enforce a Will. The Executing Court has the power to determine the validity of the Will and decide the entitlement of the parties to the compensation. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Executing Court to record further evidence on the issue of the Will and disburse the compensation in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the disbursement of compensation for land acquisition. The deceased, Sh. Hari Singh, and his three sons were entitled to compensation. The dispute arose regarding the disbursement of Sh. Hari Singh's share of the compensation, with two sons and three grandsons claiming entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Executing Court has the power to determine the validity of the Will and decide the entitlement of the parties to the compensation. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Executing Court to record further evidence on the issue of the Will and disburse the compensation in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Executing Court could go into the genuineness and validity of a Will in the context of disbursing compensation for land acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in Delhi, it is not compulsory to obtain a probate to enforce a Will. The Executing Court has the power to determine the validity of the Will and decide the entitlement of the parties to the compensation.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Executing Court was directed to record further evidence on the issue of the Will and disburse the compensation in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petitions raise an important question of law as to whether an Executing Court giving effect to an award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector can go into the genuineness and validity of the Will set up by one of the heirs of the deceased, in whose favour compensation already stands confirmed.
2. The facts in these cases show that land in village Bharthal was acquired by the Government on 13th December, 2000. A decree dated 7th August, 2008 was passed in LAC No.266-A/06, holding Sh. Hari Singh and his three sons who were the Petitioners, as being entitled to the compensation. The operative portion of the said judgment/decree reads as under:
56. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
57. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
58. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
59. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
60. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (South West) for information and necessary action. File be consigned to record room. and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.”
3. The deceased – Sh. Hari Singh and his three sons i.e., Sh. Kanwal Singh, Sh. Ram Kumar & Sh. Surat Singh, therefore became joint Decree Holders – entitled to 1/4th share each. Out of the three sons, one son i.e. Sh. Surat Singh pre-deceased Sh. Hari Singh. Insofar as the shares of the three sons are concerned, the compensation has already been disbursed to them and/or their LRs. Sh. Hari Singh passed away on 22.4.2011. The question that has arisen here is as to how the compensation in the name of Sh. Hari Singh i.e., 1/4th share is to be disbursed, and who is entitled to the same.
4. There are two sets of claimants. One set of claimants consists of two sons Sh. Kanwal Singh and Sh. Ram Kumar. The second set of claimants consists of the Petitioners herein - three grandsons of Sh. Hari Singh, namely, Sh. Hari Kishan, Sh. Charan Singh and Sh. Karamvir Singh, who are the sons of late Sh. Surat Singh. The said grandsons of late Sh. Hari Singh claim his share in the compensation amount exclusively on the basis of an alleged registered Will dated 27th February, 2003. Thus the dispute is between two sons of Hari Singh on the one hand and three grandsons of Hari Singh on the other hand.
5. At the stage when the legal heirs were substituted, a ld. Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to consider the disputes and had passed an order holding that in view of the competing claims between the parties, the parties were relegated to their respective legal remedies in order to establish as to
G.H. Grant Dr v. State of Bihar
Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India And Others
Madan and Another v. State of Maharashtra
Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar And Another
Bai Shakriben v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another
Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada
Shivraj Krishan Gupta & Ors. vs. Sh. Chander Krishan Gupta & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.