LA. APP. No. 254/2016

Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LA.APP. No. 254/2016

%

23^rd September, 2016

RAJESH KUMAR & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate.

versus

GAON SABHA, MUNDKA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu

Jain, Advocate for UOI/R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

LA. APP. No.254/2016 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 35130/2016 (for stay under

Section 151 CPC), 35131/2016 (for exemption)

1.

This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 is filed by the appellants against the impugned Judgment of the Trial

Court dated 1.8.2016 dismissing their claim petition for compensation, and who

were I.P. no. 2 in the trial court proceedings. The proceedings in the trial court

were reference proceedings under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act

for distribution of compensation.

LA. APP. No. 254/2016

Page 2 of 4

2.

The disputes in the present case pertain to the title of 10 biswas of

land, 5 biswas in Khasra no. 841//1/1 and 5 biswas in Khasra no. 651//21 of

Village Mundka, Delhi. The compensation amount is Rs.2,50,994/-.

3.

The issue before the trial court was as to whether the appellants/I.P.

no. 2 or their predecessor had any title or possession of the suit land. This was

held against the appellants in terms of the discussions contained in paragraphs

12 to 16 of the judgment of the trial court which read as under:-

“12.

In support of its claim, from the side of IP No. 1 Gaon Sabha Sh.

Balbir Singh, Ld. Counsel tendered in evidence the copies of Khata Khatoni in

respect of the land in question as Ex. IP1/D/1 and Ex. IP1/D/2. As per

statement of Sh. Balbir Singh, Counsel for the IP No.1, evidence of IP No.1

was closed on 16.05.2016.

13.

IP No. 2 Sh. Rajesh Kumar got himself examined as IP2W1 and

tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. IP2W-1/X and proved on record copy

of titled documents in favour of IP No. 2 as Ex. IP2W1/1 (colly); photographs

of the land in question as Ex. IP2W1/2 (colly) and complaint dated 09.12.2007

made to SHO, PS Nangloi as Ex. IP2W1/3. As per statement of Sh. D.S.

Lakra, Counsel for the IP no.2 evidence of IP No. 2 was closed on 08.10.2015.

14. I have heard Sh. Balbir Singh, Ld. Counsel for IP No.1/Gaon Sabha

and Sh. D.S. Lakra, Ld. Counsel for IP no.2 and perused the record. My

findings on issues are as under:

15. The Collector has referred the present dispute as Sh. Rajesh Kumar

and Sh. Sunil Kumar IP No.2 raised the objection of the release of the

compensation of the acquired land in question to Gaon Sabha who as per

record is the rightful owner. The Gaon Sabha proved the Khata Khatoni Ex.

IP1/D/1 and Ex. IP1/D2. Accordingly to which Gaon Sabha is the Khataidar

of the acquired land in question.

16. On the other hand IP No. 2 relied on a Power of Attorney in their

favour executed by one Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj dated 08.10.2003. The

IP No. 2 have not acted upon the alleged transaction. No document proved on

record how Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj was rightful owner of the acquired

land in question as no Revenue record in this regard proved on record. The IP

No. 2 further relied on photographs of the alleged acquired land in question,

however, no negatives have been produced to prove the photographs and there

is no proper demarcation by any revenue department regarding the alleged

LA. APP. No. 254/2016

Page 3 of 4

Khasra numbers written on the photographs. No revenue record produced in

support of the rightful ownership of the land in question by IP No. 2. Hence in

my opinion, IP No. 2 failed to establish their rightful ownership and possession

of the acquired land, therefore, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of IP No. 1

and against IP No.2.”

(underlining added)

4.

A reading of the aforesaid para