Prem Lata Gupta v. Gaon Sabha Mundka & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 'gsr'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20th September, 2018 + LA.APP. No.112/2016 SMT. PREM LATA GUPTA .... Appellant Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Adv. Versus GAON SABHA, MUNDKA & ANR. …...Respondents Through: Mr. Raghvendra Pandey, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment [dated 1st December, 2015 in LAC No.3A/11 (Unique Case ID No.02401C021799011) of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02, West] on a reference under Section 30-31 of the Act, apportioning the compensation in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas in Khasra No.55/19 Min of village Mundka between the appellant and the respondent no.1 Gaon Sabha, Mundka village in the ratio of 20:80 i.e. 20% to the appellant and 80% to the respondent no.1. 2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 10th May, 2016 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Vide subsequent order dated 8th July, 2016, no objection of the appellant to the respondent No.1 receiving compensation in terms of the impugned judgment and decree was recorded. Counter affidavit to the appeal has been filed by the counsel for the respondent no.1. The appeal thereafter has been adjourned from time to time. The counsel for the appellant has also filed written arguments. 3. Yesterday i.e. 19th September, 2018, the counsel for the appellant was heard; however since the counsel for the respondent no.1 was not available, the hearing was adjourned to today. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has been heard today and the counsel for the appellant has been heard in rejoinder and the records perused. 4. On receipt of Reference, on account of "ownership dispute", along with cheque for Rs.6,28,836/-, notice thereof was issued by the ADJ to the appellant and the respondent no.1 and the cheque ordered to be encashed and amount thereof kept in fixed deposit. The respondent no.1 made a claim before the ADJ pleading that (i) the respondent no.1 was the bhumidhar in possession of the land; (ii) the said land vested in the respondent no.1 vide orders / proceedings of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), on finding violation of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Reforms Act) and the land in question, was being used by the respondent No.1 Gaon Sabha after vesting in the Gaon Sabha, and no other person had any right, tile or interest therein ; (iii) the possession of the land had been taken over from the respondent No.1 Gaon Sabha on acquisition of the same; and, (iv) the respondent no.1 was the rightful claimant to the compensation. 5. The appellant filed a reply to the aforesaid claim of the respondent no.1, disputing that the respondent no.1 was ever in possession of the land and claiming, (a) that the appellant had purchased the subject land vide registered Sale Deed dated 1st February, 1995 from one Dalbir Singh and thereafter mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the appellant in the revenue records; (b) the appellant remained in possession of the land till acquisition thereof; (c) the appellant alone is entitled to compensation with respect thereto; and, (d) the averments of proceedings pleaded by the respondent no.1 Gaon Sabha, under Section 81 of the Reforms Act, were vague and without any particulars. The appellant also filed her own claim petition pleading the same facts. In the claim petition however, it was further pleaded that the appellant, upon coming to know of the compensation being assessed in the name of respondent No.1, had approached the authorities and contended that the land had been wrongly vested in the Gaon Sabha on the basis of vague proceedings under Section 81 of the Reforms Act and on account of which wrong vesting, the revenue entries stood in the name of the respondent no.1 and a reference on account of ownership dispute had been made. It