Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1964
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mukteshwar Prasad
SURESHWATI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 09 October 2005
First Appeal No. 384 of 2001
B.DAYAL, M.K.Gupta, Vishnu Sahai,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing the validity of a sale deed and the entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Appeal - Section 54 - Khasra No. 554/3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 166 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R Act. The court also referred to the principles of Pardanashin lady and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, regarding the entitlement to receive compensation for a land acquired for planned development. The claimant, Smt. Sureshwati, and M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. both claimed rights for compensation, leading to a reference to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Smt. Sureshwati did not execute a valid sale deed in favor of M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. and was entitled to receive compensation under Section 11 of the Act. The court held that the land did not vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and set aside the judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to compensation for the land and the validity of the sale deed executed by Smt. Sureshwati in favor of M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sureshwati was not proved and was a void document. It also found that M/s. NSR Farms Pvt. Ltd. was not entitled to recover any compensation for the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree were set aside. Smt. Sureshwati was held entitled to recover compensation under Section 11 of the Act for the land in dispute.
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 nor affixed her thum
