SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 1712

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Sureshwati, Ram
Versus
State of U.P.
First Appeal 384 of 2001
Decided On : 12 September 2005
First Appeal 384 Of 2001

Advocates:
AMIT KRISHNAN, B.DAYAL, M.K.Gupta, R.B.Singhal, Vishnu Sahai,

The burden of proof for the due execution of a sale deed lies with the vendee, and the court may not rely on a certified copy of the sale deed if the original is not produced.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Smt. Sureshwati - Khasra No. 554/3, area 5-0-0 Bighas - Section 11 of the Act

Fact of the Case:

The land in question was acquired for planned development, and both Smt. Sureshwati and M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. claimed rights for compensation. The court was tasked with determining the rightful recipient of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sureshwati in favor of M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. was void, as it contravened the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The land was held to be vested in the State Government, and Smt. Sureshwati was deemed entitled to receive compensation under Section 11 of the Act.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed, the entitlement to compensation, and the effect of the sale deed's alleged voidness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was not valid, as the lease in favor of Smt. Sureshwati had been cancelled, and she had not executed the sale deed knowingly. The court also emphasized the burden of proof on the vendee to establish the due execution of the sale deed.

Final Decision: The judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 were set aside, and Smt. Sureshwati was deemed entitled to recover compensation under Section 11 of the Act for the disputed land.

MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by Smt. Sureshwati (claimant) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24. 1. 2001 passed by District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar whereby he found that neither the claimant nor M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to receive compensation in respect of Khasra no. 554/3 area 5-0-0 Bighas situate in village Geja Tilaptabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar and the land in question would be deemed to have been resumed by the State.

( 2 ) IN brief, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under:it appears that the land recorded as Khasra No. 554/3 area 5-0-0 Bighas situate in village Geja tilaptabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired for the planned development of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. In the Revenue records, the name of Smt. Sureshwati, widow of Shri Ram, was recorded as Bhumidhar with non- transferable rights. Therefore, the compensation under Section 11 of the Act was prepared in her name. However, M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. 11, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi preferred a claim for payment of compensation of the land in question on the ground of being a transferee of Smt. Sureshwati. An objection was filed. Since M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Sureshwati were claiming their rights for payment of compensation in respect of the aforesaid Khasara No. 554/3, area 5-0-0 Bighas, the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition Officer) NOIDA, gautam Budh Nagar made a reference to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Act for determining the person/persons to whom the compensation or any part thereof is payable.

( 3 ) NOTICES were issued to the claimants, who appeared in the court below and filed their written statement/objections.

( 4 ) IT was alleged by M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. that Smt. Sureshwati was Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Khasara No. 554/3, area 5-0-0 Bigha and she accepted Rs. 1,80,000/- as sale consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. on 2. 12. 88. The registration took place at the office of Sub-registrar, Dadri. Smt. Nirmala Sethi had given all papers to one Suresh Chandra Sharma, a deed writer, for mutation. He, however, did not apply for mutation in the court of Tehsildar Dadri. Smt. Nirmala Sethi and her husband went abroad and stayed there. When Smt. Sethi inquired on 28. 9. 99 about mutation, she came to know that the land in question had been acquired for planned development of NOIDA and possession had also been delivered. Smt. Sethi claimed herself to be an absolute owner and in possession. The sale deed in question had not been cancelled by any competent court.

( 5 ) SMT. Sureshwati filed written statement/objection claiming herself to be Bhumidhar of the plot with non-transferable rights and the land was acquired from her possession. She asserted that the land in question was neither sold to M/s NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. nor Smt. Nirmala Sethi nor any sale consideration was paid to her. The lady claimed that the disputed land was allotted to her as non-transferable Bhumidhar vide resolution- dated 11. 2. 1981 passed by the Land Management committee. Moreover, on 2. 12. 88 she had no right to execute sale deed in favour of Smt. Nirmala Sethi and as such, the sale deed in question is a void document. According to her, she needed money and contacted Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, a deed writer at Dadri in this regard. Sri Sharma pleaded his inability in advancing any loan. He, however, assured that he would arrange a loan of Rs. 15,000/- on the condition that some papers would have to be prepared. She is a rustic villager and is an illiterate lady. She therefore affixed her thumb impression on some papers through which loan was advanced to her. Smt. Nirmala Sethi had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000/ -. She never executed any sale deed voluntarily no



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top