Delhi District Court
Uoi (Mundka) vs Om Prakash Ors on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 220/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-000456-2011
DLWT010004562011
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 03/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 23.05.2009
1. Union of India
Through LAC(W), Office at:
Plot No. 3, Shivaji Place,
Raja Garden, Delhi-110027
Versus
1. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Rishal Singh
R/o Plot No. 486, Gali Khation Wali,
Near Mundka, Metro Station, Mundka,
Delhi-110041
2. Sanjay S/o Sh. Rishal Singh
R/o plot No. 486, Gali Khation Wali.
Near Mundka, Metro Station, Mundka,
Delhi-110041
3. Krishan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh
R/o H. No.340, Near Laxmi Chand Baldev Raj Cloth
House, Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 1/61
4. Same @ Samai Singh S/o Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o H. No. 918, Near Mundka Metro Station,
Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
5. Mahavir Singh @ Mahbir Singh S/o Sh. Jagan Singh
R/o H. No. 917, Harijan Basti, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
6. Ajesh Kumar @ Aajesh S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o H. No. 800-A, Near Mundka Metro Station,
Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
7. Parmeshwari wife of Sh. Chandra Bhan
R/o H. No. 800-A Main Rohtak Road, Near Mundka
Metro Station, Village Mundkha, Delhi-110041.
8. Dharmbir S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o H. No. 800-A, Pole No. 7, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Vilage Mundka, Delhi-110041.
9. Deva Nand S/o Sh. Bhagwana
R/o H. No. 923, Near Mundka Metro Station.
Village Mundka, Delhi-110041
10. Dharampal S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o H. No. 800-A, Near Mundka Metro Station,
Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
11. Rotash S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o H. No. 918, Harijan Basti, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Village Mundkha, Delhi-110041.
12. Nirender Singh ( Deceased) Through LR's
A. Banchal ( wife )
B. Kamla Devi ( mother ) wife of late Zile Singh deceased
through LR's
(i) Shanti Devi ( daughter)
(ii) Kanti Devi ( daughter)
(iii) Rohtash ( son )
(iv) Narender Singh ( Pre-deceased-son) through LR's already
impleaded as 12(A,C,D and E)
C. Jitesh ( son minor ) through natural guardian his mother
Smt.Bachal
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 2/61
D. Aayush ( son minor) through natural guardian his mother
Smt. Banchal.
E. Paras ( son minor) through natural guardian his mother Smt.
Banchal.
All are R/o H. No. 918, Near Mundkha Metro Station.
Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
13. Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Jage Ram (Deceased through
LR's)
A. Roshan Kumar @ Rohan (Son)
B. Rajesh Kumar (Son)
C. Rekha (Daughter)
D. Vinod Kumar (son)(note LR's of IP No. 13-D is
already impleaded as IP No. 14).
All are R/o H. No. 920, Harijan Basti, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
14. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o H. No. 920, Harijan Basti, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
15. Hari Om Singh S/o Sh. Bhop Singh
R/o H. No. C-136, Friends Enclave, Village
Mundka, West Delhi, Delhi-110041.
16. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o H. No. 920, Harijan Basti, Near Mundkha Metro
Station, Village Mundkha, Delhi-110041.
17. Sanjit @ Sanjeet Kumar
R/o H. No. 917, Harijan Basti, Near Mundka Metro
Station, Village Mundkha, Delhi-110041.
18. Jai Prakash S/o Sh. Jage Ram
R/o Khasra No. 263, Main Rohtak Road, Near Mundka
Metro Station, Village Mundka, Delhi-110041.
Date of institution of the case : 18.08.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 19.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.12.2024
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 3/61
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The present ‘Reference’ under section 30/31 of the
Land Acquisition Act has been forwarded by the LAC, West
District to this court for adjudicating upon the competing claims
of 18 Interested Persons (IP’s) i.e. IP No. 1 & 18, regarding their
claims, in the compensation amount for acquisition of land ad-
measuring 4 biswa 7 biswani, in Khasra No. 263, situated in
revenue estate of Village Mundka as well as compensation for
structure existing on the said land. The LAC, West has acquired
above said 4 biswa 7 biswani land vide Award No. 03/DC(W)
2008-09 dated 19.05.2009 and the 18 persons are claiming
interest in the said land. The IP No. 1 to 3 are claiming claim
competitive to the claim of IP No. 4 to 18. There is dispute of
title and interest in the acquired land between IP No 1 to 3 on the
one hand and IP No. 4 to 18 on the other hand.
2. The land has been acquired by the LAC, West for
the purpose of construction of Entry/exit and traffic integration
of Inderlok-Mundka corridor of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II,
near Bus Stand Mundka and East of Rani Khera Road ( Mundka
Station). The total area of the land acquired vide award no.
03/DC(W) 2008 was ad-measuring 23 bigha, 05 biswa and the
present dispute is concerned only with land ad-measuring 4
biswa 7 biswani, out of the above said land ad-measuring 23
bigha 05 biswas. The name of the interested persons are
mentioned in the memo of parties.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 4/61
3. Notices of the reference petition were served upon all
the Interested Persons.
4. As per order dated 18.08.2011, the cheque No. 312919
dated 17.08.2011 of Rs.5,70,798/- was directed to be deposited in
Indian Overseas Bank, Nanak Pyau Gurudwara, Rana Pratap
Bagh, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on the basis of regular renewal
after one year.
5. As per order dated 23.01.2012, the cheque No.
313051 dated 20.01.2012 of Rs.5,70,798/- was directed to be
deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Fixed Deposit on
the basis of regular renewal after one year.
6. IP No. 1 Sh. Om Parkash and IP No. 2, Sh. Sanjay
both have filed their joint claim and averred that IP No. 1 & 2 are
the joint bhumidar/co-owners to the extent of half share in the
acquired land of 4 biswa & 7 biswani.
7. It is averred by IP No. 1 & 2, in their claim petition
that they are the joint bhumidar/co-owners to the extent of half
share in the aforesaid acquired land and are entitled for 1/4th
share each, in the the compensation assessed for the aforesaid
land by the LAC, West.
8. IP no. 3 Sh. Krishna Kumar has filed his separate claim
and he averred that he is the joint Bhumidhar/co-owner to the
extend of half share in the acquired land of 4 biswa & 7 biswani.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 5/61
9. IP No. 4 to 18 have filed their joint reply to the claims
filed on behalf of IP No. 1, 2 & 3 and have taken preliminary
objections that IP no. 1, 2 & 3 have no right, title or interest in
the compensation amount of acquired land bearing Khasra no.
263 of Village Mundka, Delhi. It is further averred by them that
the claims filed by IP No. 1, 2 & 3 are false and wrong averments
have been mentioned in the claim. It is further contended by IP
No. 4 to 18 that IP No. 1, 2 & 3 were neither the owner nor in
possession of the land, at the relevant time and are not entitled
for any relief. On merit, IP No. 4 to 18 have denied all the
contents of the claim of IP No. 1 ,2 & 3.
10. IP no. 4 to 18 have also filed separate claims in the
present reference petition. IP No. 4 to 18 are claiming that they
were owners and in possession of their respective shares in the
acquired land at the time of acquisition of acquired land by the
LAC, West.
11. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 in their claim
petitions that their fore-father late Sh. Bhunde Ram S/o Behuja
had got the acquired land by way of exchange from the then
recorded owner Sh. Subh Ram @ Shiv Ram, by way of mutual
transfer vide exchange deed dated 31.07.1951. It is further
averred by them that the said mutual exchange/settlement was
executed between the parties with their own will and fore-father
of the claimants came into possession of the exchanged land,
after the execution of exchange deed but the mutation of the said
land could not be implemented in the revenue record, on the
basis of said exchange deed.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 6/61
12. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 that their
forefather were in possession of the acquired land and after the
death of the fore-father, the present claimants are still in
continues physically possession on the acquired land and have
got successory right during the course of time to the extent of
their respective shares in the acquired land as well as in the
structure existing on the said land.
13. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 that the name of
IP No. 1, 2 & 3, on the basis of stray entry, remains recorded in
the revenue record. It is further averred by them that the IP No.
1, 2 & 3 cannot be allowed to take advantage, on the basis of said
entry to get compensation of the acquired land, in which they
never remained in possession.
14. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 that Sh. Bhunde,
the predecessor-in-interest of claimants became the owner of the
above said acquired land, after the execution of above said
exchange deed. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 that the
claimants are in successor-in-interest of late Sh. Bhunde. It is
further averred by them that after the death of Sh. Bunde, the
family members partitioned the above said property bearing
Khasra No. 263, as per the requirement and according to the need
of the family members.
15. It is further averred by IP No. 4 to 18 that as per mutual
partition between the family members, the acquired property has
come to the shares of them. The shares in the acquired property,
claimed by IP No. 4 to 18, in the claim petition are mentioned as
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 7/61
below:-
i) IP No. 4 Sh. Samai Singh has claimed 15 sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
ii) IP No. 5 Sh. Mahvir Singh has claimed 13 sq. meter land in
the acquired land.
IP No. 6 Sh. Ajesh has claimed 8 Sq. meter land in the acquired
land.
IP No. 7 Ms Parmeshwari has claimed 32 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 8 Sh. Dharamvir has claimed 8 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 9 Sh. Devanand has claimed 28 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 10 Sh. Dharampal has claimed 8 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 11 Sh. Rohtash has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 12 Sh. Narender Singh has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in
the acquired land.
IP No. 13 Sh. Rajender Singh has claimed 20 Sq. meter land in
the acquired land.
IP No. 14 Sh. Vinod Kumar has claimed 8 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 15 Sh. Hariom Singh has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in
the acquired land.
IP No. 16 Sh. Vijay Kumar has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
IP No. 17 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in
the acquired land.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 8/61
IP No. 18 Sh. Jai Prakash has claimed 14 Sq. meter land in the
acquired land.
16. IP No. 1 & 2 have filed reply to the claim filed on
behalf of IP No. 4, 14 and 16 and have taken preliminary
objections that the claim under reply is false, frivolous, baseless
and without any cause of action and as such the same is required
for dismissal. It is further contended by IP No. 1 & 2 that neither
late Sh. Bhunde Ram S/o Behuja, nor the aforesaid claimants
have any right, title or interest of any kind in the acquired land
and as such the aforesaid claimants/IPs are not entitled for any
compensation or any other benefit of the acquired land.
17. It is further contended by IP No. 1& 2 that the claim
petition of the aforesaid claimants/IPs are bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties as they deliberately not disclosed the names of
all other legal heirs of late Sh. Bhunde Ram, to whom they are
claiming their predecessor in interest. On merit, all the contents
of the claim of IP No. 4, 14 & 16 have been denied as wrong.
18. IP No. 3 filed reply to the claim of IP No. 4 and has
taken preliminary objection that the claim under reply is not
properly verified and affidavit in support of claim is also not
verified as per requirement of order 19 rule 3 CPC and as such
there being no claim in the eyes of law and the claim under reply
be dismissed with costs.
19. IP No. 1 and 2 have filed separate replies to the claim
of IP No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 15 and contended that the
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 9/61
claims under reply are false, frivolous, baseless and without any
cause of action and as such the same are required to be
dismissed. It is further contended that neither late Sh. Bhunde
Ram S/o Behuja nor the aforesaid claimants had any right, title
or interest of any kind in the acquired land and as such the
aforesaid claimants/IPs are not entitled for any compensation or
any other benefit of the acquired land.
20. It is further contended by IP No. 1 & 2 that the claims
petition of the aforesaid claimants/IPs are bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties as they deliberately not disclosed the names of
all other legal heirs of late Sh. Bhunde Ram, to whom they are
claiming their predecessor in interest. On merit, all the contents
of the claim of above said IPs have been denied as wrong.
21. IP No. 3 has also filed separate joint reply to the claims
of IP No. 4 to IP No. 18 and has taken preliminary objection that
the claims under reply are not properly verified and affidavit in
support of claim and are also not verified as per the requirement
of order 19 rule 3 CPC and as such there being no claim in the
eyes of law. On merit, all the contents of the claims of the above
said IPs have been denied as wrong.
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed vide order dated 10.07.2013:
1. Which of the IP is entitled for the compensation
amount in respect of the acquired land and to what an extent?
OPP
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 10/61
2. Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation
amount in respect of structures on the acquired land and to what
an extent? OPP
3. Relief.
23. IP No. 1 and IP No. 2, in order to prove their claim has
examined IP No. 2 as witness/IP1W1 and IP No. 1 has tendered
his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP1W1/A and relied upon the
following documents:
1. Ex. IP1W1/1(OSR) : The copy of Khatoni
2. Ex. IP1W1/2 : The Ask Sizra.
24. IP no.1/IP1W1 has deposed in his examination in chief
on affidavit that he and IP No. 2 Sh. Sanjay are the real brothers.
IP No. 1 further deposed in his examination in chief that he and
IP No. 2 are the joint bhumidhars/co-owners to the extent of half
share in land measuring 1 bigha and 7 biswas, Khasra No. 263,
situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi.
25. IP1W1 has further deposed in his examination in chief
that the land measuring 4 biswa 7 biswani out of the above total
land of 1 bigha 7 biswa of above said Khasra No. situated in the
revenue estate of Village Mundka, was acquired by the LAC,
West vide Award No. 3/DC(W) 2008-09 dated 23.05.2009. IP
No. 1 further deposed that he and his brother IP No. 2 are the
joint bhumidhars/co-owners to the extent of half share in the
aforesaid acquired land and are entitled for compensation
assessed for the aforesaid land to the extent of 1/4th share each.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 11/61
26. IP1W1 has been cross-examined on behalf of IP No. 4
to 18 and he deposed in his cross- examination that he has filed
claim with regard to Khasra No. 261, 262 & 263. IP No. 1 further
deposed that the property is situated on the main road and part of,
on the back side. The status of land is residential. The front
portion on his land was acquired by DMRC and on the back side,
he is residing. IP no. 1 further deposed that they are not residing
therein due to dispute with Mr. Krishan, who is son of his uncle
and co-sharer in the said property. IP No. 1 further deposed that
he did not file any representation before Lt. Governor of Delhi
against the acquisition of land in question. IP No. 1 further
deposed in his cross-examination that he never instituted any
case regarding ejectment of objector nos. 4 to 18 and objector no.
4 to 18 are in alleged possession for the last more than 20 years.
IP no. 1 further deposed that he had not applied before the Land
and Building Department against the acquisition of land in
question.
27. IP1W1 No. 1, in his cross-examination, has admitted
that the area was later on reduced by the government from the
acquisition, due to houses and shops.
28. Vide separate statement of IP No. 1, evidence on
behalf of IP No. 1 & 2 stands closed on 30.10.2015.
29. IP No. 3, in order to prove his claim has examined
himself as IP3W1 and he tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP3W1/A and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.
IP1/1 & Ex. IP1/2. IP No. 3 reiterated the averments, of his
claim petition.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 12/61
30. The IP No. 3 has been cross-examined by IP No. 4 to
18 and he deposed in his cross-examination that the property was
inherited by him from his fore fathers and name of his
grandfather was Sh. Subh Ram. IP No. 3 admitted the suggestion
that only front portion of the property in question was acquired
by the government. He does not know about the LRs of Bhunde
and not aware about the alternative allotment given in lieu of the
land in question. IP No. 3 further deposed that he never agitated
before the Lt. Governor against the acquisition of the property in
question. IP No. 3 further deposed in his cross-examination that
he has not filed any petition or objections against the valuation
assessed in favour of IP No. 4 to 18 by the DMRC. He further
deposed that there was no question for filing any petition for
ejectment against Sumai Singh & Ors ( IP NO. 4 to 18) as the
land was in his possession till acquisition.
31. Vide separate statement of IP No. 3, evidence on
behalf of IP no. 3 stands closed on 08.01.2016.
32. IP No. 4 in order to prove his claim examined himself
as IP No. 4 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP4W1/A
and relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. IP4W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of his election card.
5. IP4W1/2 : Copy of his ration card.
6. IP4W1/3 ( OSR): Copy of OBC certificate
7. Mark X & Y : Copies of electricity bill issued by BSES
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 13/61
Rajdhani Power Ltd. and DESU
8. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed by IP No. 4
9. IP4W1/6 : Copy of relevant extract of award No.
3/DCW-2008-09 reflecting the name of IP No. 4 at Sl. no.
20 at page no. 5 of the award.
10. Mark Z: Copy of notice served by IP No. 4.
11. Mark H: Copy of issue of cheque no. 2624 dated 15.11.2008
by DMRC.
IP No. 4 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IPW4W1/4, IP4W1/5, IP4W1/7,
IP4W1/8 and IP4W1/9.
33. IP No. 4 has been duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel
for IP No. 3 and in his cross-examination he deposed that Khasra
No. 263 min i.e. acquired land is in the name of IP No. 1, 2 and 3
in the Revenue Record till its acquisition. IP No. 4 admitted that
the government acquired the land twice for Metro Project. IP
No. 4 further deposed in his cross-examination that his alleged
share of 15 meter of the acquired land of 30 Sq. meter came to
his father and after his death the share came to him and his
brother Mahavir Singh. IP No. 4 admitted that no Khasra
number is mentioned in respect of land alleged to have been
received in exchange by his grand father. IP No. 4 further
deposed that he cannot tell the location of the land given by his
grand father in exchange to the other side. IP No. 4 further
admitted that neither his grand father, nor his father nor he ever
applied for mutation in the Revenue Record, in respect of the
said exchange deed for the land in question. IP No. 4 further
deposed that the said exchange deed is also not registered nor
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 14/61
any of the executant and witnesses has signed in his presence nor
he can recognize their thumb impression on the same. IP No. 4
further deposed that he does not know whether the English and
Hindi translation of the said exchange deed is correct or not
because he does not know Urdu language. IP No. 4 further
deposed that in respect of exchange deed, he was told by his
forefather but he never told Khasra No. 263 is of the exchange
deed.
34. IP No. 4 further deposed in his cross-examination that
he is not in a position to produce any document from Revenue
Record that the land acquired Khasra No. 263 before the
acquisition was in the name of his fore father or in his name.
35. The IP No. 4 was also cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and he deposed that he does not know when Sh.
Bhunde Ram has died. IP No. 4 further deposed that at present,
all the children of late Sh. Bhunde Ram have died and he cannot
tell when the children of Bhunde Ram died. He has not filed any
original document to prove his relationship with late Sh. Bhunde
Ram. IP No. 4 further deposed in his cross-examination that the
area of land owned by Sh. Bhunde Ram is approximately 800 sq.
yards and he admitted that no Khasra number is mentioned in Ex.
IP5W1/1 regarding the land in question. IP No. 4 further denied
all the suggestions put to him.
36. Vide separate statement of IP No. 4, evidence on behalf
of IP No. 4 stands closed.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 15/61
37. IP No. 5 in order to prove his claim examined himself
as IP No. 5 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP5/A and
relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP5W1/4 ( OSR): Copy of his election card.
5. Ex.IP5W1/5 (OSR) : Copy of electricity bill due dated
02.01.1997.
6. Ex.P5W1/6 ( OSR): Copy of release of new telephone
connection.
7. Ex.P5W1/7 ( OSR): Copy of original telephone bill in his
name.
8. Mark B- Copy of his ration card.
9. Ex.P5W1/8 ( OSR): Photographs of the property in question.
10. Ex.P5W1/9 ( OSR): Copy of certificate of verification from
the office of Controller of Legal Metrology.
11. Ex.P5W1/10 ( OSR): Copy of challan by department of
Health & Family Welfare.
12. Ex.P5W1/11 ( OSR): Copy of licence for selling of fire
works issued by Commissioner of Police, District West.
13. Mark C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 : Invoices in the name of Deepak
General Store and C-5 invoice in his name.
14. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed by him.
15. Ex.IP5W1/13 : Copy of relevant extract of award No.
3/DCW-2008-09 reflecting the name of IP No. 5 at Sl. no. 11
at page no. 4 of the award.
16. Mark E: Copy of extract of joint survey done by DMRC.
17. Ex. IP5W1/14 ( OSR): Copy of notice served upon him.
18. Ex. IP5W1/15(ORS): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010.
19. Mark H: Copy of cheque no. 2619 dated 15.11.2008 by
DMRC.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 16/61
IP No. 5 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP5W1/16 and IP5W1/12 and now
marked as Mark C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5.
38. IP No. 5 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
39. Vide separate statement of IP No. 5, the evidence on
behalf of IP No. 5 stands closed on 24.08.2016.
40. IP No. 6 in order to prove his claim examined himself
as IP No. 6 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP6W1/A
and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 : The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP6W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of his election card.
5. Ex.IP7W1/2 : Copy of ration card already exhibited in the
statement of IP7W1.
6. Mark A1: Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
7. Ex.IP7W1/4 : Copy of Water Bill issued by Delhi Jal Board
already exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
8. Ex.IP7W1/5 : Copy of bill issued by Tata Ceullular already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
9. Mark Y: Photocopy of photographs of the property in
question.
10. Mark A2 & A-3: Copy of cash memo and invoice.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 17/61
11. Ex.IP6W1/4 ( OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010.
12. Mark Y-1: Copy of letter dated 08.05.2009, issued by
DMRC to project affected persons of Village Mundka.
13. Mark H: Copy of receipt of cheque no. 002622 dated
15.11.2008 by DMRC.
14. A-4: Copy of notice under section 10(2) of L.A Act in his
father’s name.
15. A-5: Copy of notice issued by LAC, West dated 23.10.1981
IP No. 6 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as Ex. IP6W1/3 and Ex. IP6W1/7 and
now marked as Mark Y and Mark Y1 respectively.
41. IP No. 6 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
42. IP No. 7 in order to prove her claim examined herself
as IP No. 7 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP7W1/A
and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP7W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of her election card.
5. Ex. IP7W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of ration card.
6. Mark A1 : Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU
7. Ex.IP7W1/4 ( OSR): Copy of Water Bill issued by Delhi
Jal Board.
8. Ex.IP7W1/5 ( OSR): Copy of bill issued by Tata Cellular.
9. Mark B- Copy of his ration card.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 18/61
10. Ex.IP9W1/14 : Copy of relevant extract of award No.
3/DCW-2008-09 reflecting the name of IP No. 7 at Sl. no.
27 at page no. 5 of the award.
11. Mark A-4: Copy of notice issued by LAC, West dated
23.04.2009
IP No. 7 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP7W1/3 and IP7W1/7 and now
marked as Mark G and H and A-4.
43. IP No. 7 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
44. IP No. 8 in order to prove his claim examined himself
as IP No. 5 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP8W1/A
and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP8W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of his election card.
5. Ex. IP8W1/2 (OSR): Copy of his driving licence.
6. Ex. IP7W1/2: Copy of ration card already exhibited in the
statement of IP7W1.
7. Mark A1 : Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
8. Ex.IP7W1/4: Copy of Water bill issued by Delhi Jal Board
already exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
9. Ex.IP7W1/5: Copy of bill issued by Tata Cellular already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 19/61
10. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before LAC
under section 5A of LA Act.
11. Mark E: Copy of extract of joint survey done by DMRC.
12. Mark G- Copy of receipt of cheque no. 002623 dated
13.11.2008 in his name.
14. Ex.IP8W1/3 ( OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010 issued by DMRC.
15. Mark A1: Copy of letter dated 08.05.2009 issued by DMRC
in respect of project affected person of Village Mundka.
16. Mark A-4: Copy of notice under section 10(2) of L.A Act in
the name of his father already marked in the statement of
IP6W1/A.
17. Mark A-5: Copy of notice issued by LAC dated 23.10.1981
already marked in the statement of IP6W1/A which are shown
in his affidavit as marked H & I respectively.
IP No. 8 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP8W1/4 and IP8W1/5 and now
marked as Mark A-1.
45. IP No. 8 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
46. IP No. 9 in order to prove his claim examined himself
as IP No. 9 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. IP9W1/X
and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP9W1/A ( OSR): Copy of election card of his father.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 20/61
5. Ex. IP9W1/B : Death certificate of his father late Sh.
Bhagwana.
6. Mark A1: Copy of his Election Card.
7. Ex. IP9W1/2 ( OSR) : Copy of his Aadhar Card.
8. Ex. IP9W1/3 ( OSR) : Copy of his OBC Certificate.
9. Ex. IP9W1/4 ( OSR) : Copy of his driving license
10. Mark A-2 : Copy of his ration card.
11. Ex.IP9W1/6 ( OSR) : Copy of electricity bill issued by
DESU
12. Ex.IP9W1/7 (OSR): Copy of electricity bill for the month of
February, 2012 pertaining to CA No. 102723122.
13. Ex.IP9W1/8 (OSR): Copy of electricity bill for the month of
February, 2012 pertaining to CA No. 102759558.
14. Ex.IP9W1/9 ( OSR) : Photocopy of photographs of the
property in question.
15. Ex.IP9W1/10 ( OSR) : Copy of New India Scale Corporation
dated 24.04.2003 in the name of Suraj General Store.
16. Mark-A3: Copy of invoice no. 7211.
17. Mark-A4: Copy of invoice issued by Khandelwal.
18. Ex. IP9W1/13: Copy of challan u/s 337/347 of DMC Act in
his name.
19. Ex. IP9W1/14: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 9 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 16 ate page no. 4 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point D.
20. Ex. IP9W1/15 ( OSR): Copy of notice dated 23.04.2009
issued by LAC, WEST.
21. Ex.IP9W1/16 ( OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010 issued by DMRC in his name.
22. Ex. IP9W1/17( OSR): Copy of letter dated 08.05.2009
issued by DMRC in respect of project affected person of Village
Mundka.
23. Mark H: Copy of cheque no. 2621 dated 15.11.2008 issued
by DMRC in his name.
IP No. 9 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP9W1/1 and IP9W1/5.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 21/61
47. IP No. 9 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
48. IP No. 10 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 10 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP10W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP10W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of his election card.
5. Ex. IP7W1/2: Copy of ration card already exhibited in the
statement of IP7W1.
6. Mark A1 : Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
7. Ex.IP7W1/4: Copy of Water bill issued by Delhi Jal Board
already exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
8. Ex.IP7W1/5: Copy of bill issued by Tata Cellular already
exhibited in the statement of IP7W1.
9. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before LAC
under section 5A of LA Act.
10. Mark E: Copy of extract of joint survey done by DMRC.
11. Mark A-4: Copy of notice under section 10(2) of L.A Act in
the name of his father, already marked in the statement of
IP6W1/A.
12. Mark G- Copy of receipt of cheque no. 002623 dated
13.11.2008 in his name.
14. Ex.IP8W1/3 ( OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010 issued by DMRC.
15. Mark A1: Copy of letter dated 08.05.2009 issued by DMRC
in respect of project affected person of Village Mundka.
16. Mark A-4: Copy of notice under section 10(2) of L.A Act in
the name of his father already marked in the statement of
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 22/61
IP6W1/A.
17. Mark A-5: Copy of notice issued by LAC dated 23.10.1981
already marked in the statement of IP6W1/A which are shown in
his affidavit as marked G & H respectively.
IP No. 10 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of
IP No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
49. IP No. 11 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 11 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP11W1/X and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP11W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Ex. IP11W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of ration card.
6. Mark A3, A-4 and A5: photocopy of photographs of the
property in question.
7. Ex. IP11W1/7: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 11 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 21 ate page no. 5 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point F.
8. Ex. IP12W1/11 : Copy of challan issued by Department of
health and Family Welfare.
9. Ex. IP12W1/12 : Copy of invoice issued by Kaushik Gas
Agency dated 07.08.2010 already exhibited in the statement of
IP12W1 (OSR)
10. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before
LAC under section 5 A of LA Act
11. Mark E: Copy of extract of joint survey done by DMRC.
12. Mark A-7: Copy of notice served by him.
13. Mark H: Copy of cheque no. 002621 dated 15.11.2008.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 23/61
IP No. 11 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP11W1/3, Ex. IP11W1/4, Ex.
IP11W1/6 and IP11W1/8 and which are marked and read as
Mark F, Mark A2, Mark A-3, Mark A5 and Marked A-7
respectively. .
50. IP No. 11 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of
IP No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
51. Vide separate statement of IP No. 11, evidence on
behalf of IP No. 11 was closed on 19.10.2016.
52. IP No. 12 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 12 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP12W1/X and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP12W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Mark A1: Copy of ration card.
6. Mark A-2: Copy of old ration card.
7. Ex. IP12W1/3 ( OSR) : Copy of his driving licence.
8. Ex.IP12W1/4 ( OSR) : Copy of electricity bill for June 2002
issued by DESU.
9. Ex.IP12W1/5 (OSR): Copy of electricity bill for the month of
October, 1999.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 24/61
10. Mark X- Copy of payment of receipt dated 01.04.1999
issued by DESU.
11. Ex.IP12W1/7: Copy of telephone bill dated 20.04.2003.
12. Ex.IP12W1/8 : Copy of bill dated 02.01.2004 issued by
Cellular Company.
13. Ex.IP12W1/9 ( OSR) : Copy of OBC Certificate
14. Ex. IP12W1/10 (OSR) ( Colly) : Photocopy of photographs
of the property in question.
15. Ex. IP9W1/11(OSR): Copy of challan issued by department
of Health & Family Welfare
16. Ex. IP12W1/12 (OSR)( two sheets): Copy of invoice issued
by Kaushik Gas Agency dated 07.08.2010.
19. Ex. IP12W1/13: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 12 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 23 ate page no. 4 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point C.
20. Mark E: Copy of extract of joint survey done by DMRC.
21. Ex.IP12W1/14 (OSR): Copy of notice served by him.
21. Ex.IP9W1/15 (OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010 issued by DMRC in his name.
22. Ex. IP9W1/17: Copy of letter dated 08.05.2009 issued by
DMRC in respect of project affected person of Village Mundka.
23. Ex. IP12W1/18: Copy of receipt of DDA dated 14.06.2010.
24. Mark H: Copy of cheque no. 2620 dated 15.11.2008.
25. Ex. IP12W1/19 ( five sheets) (OSR): Copy of invoice/cash
memo issued in the name of shop i.e. Sanju General Store.
IP No. 12 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP12W1/6 and IP12W1/16 and
Mark A-3.
53. IP No. 12 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of
IP No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 25/61
54. Vide separate statement of IP No. 12, evidence on
behalf of IP no. 12 stands closed on 26.08.2016.
55. IP No. 13 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 13 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP13W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP13W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Ex. IP13W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of ration card.
6. Ex. IP13W1/3 ( OSR): Copy of OBC certificate.
7. Ex. IP13W1/4 ( OSR): Copy of electricity bill dated
20.03.1989.
56. IP No. 13 again appeared in the witness box and
deposed that he rely upon the documents Ex. IP14W1/3, 4, 8, 11
by IP No. 14 Sh. Vinod, who is his son. IP No. 13 further submits
that he also rely upon the following documents i.e.
i) The copy of receipt dated 4.06.1999 issued by DESU
in the name of his brother Sh. Roshan Kumar as Ex. IPW15W1/5
( OSR).
ii) The extract of Award contained in photocopy of the
award is Ex. IPW13W1/7 which is shown at Sl, No. 17 at page
no. 4 of the award.
iii) Copy of notice dated 23.04.2009 issued by the LAC to
him as Ex. IPW13W1/6.
IP No. 13 further deposed in his examination in chief
that the documents Ex. IP13W1/6 and Ex. IP14/12 and Mark H
in his affidavit are hereby de-exhibited being not placed on
record.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 26/61
57. IP No.13 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
58. IP No. 14 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 14 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP14W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP14W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card of his father.
5. Ex. IP14W1/2 ( OSR) : Copy of his driving licence.
6. Ex.IP14W1/3 ( OSR) : Copy of electricity bill for the month
of December, issued by DESU
7. Ex.IP14W1/4 ( OSR) : Copy of receipt dated 18.01.1999
issued by DESU.
8. Mark X: Copy of bill issued by Delhi Jal Board.
9. Ex.IP14W1/6 (OSR): Copy of receipt of payment of bill dated
16.09.1998 issued by DJB.
10. Ex.IP14W1/7 : photographs of the property in question.
11. Ex.IP14W1/8 ( OSR) ( 2 sheets) : The cash memo issued by
Arora Cycle Works in the name ” Vinod Cycle Store”.
12. Mark-C & D: Objection and reply against the acquisition of
DMRC for the construction of Mundka Station on his property.
13. Mark-A4: Copy of invoice issued by Khandelwal.
14. Ex. IP14W1/9: Copy of relevant extract of award.
15. Mark E_ Copy of assessment alongwith joint Survey list.
16. Mark F- Copy of list of valuation/survey report.
17. Ex. IP14W1/10 (OSR): Notice served upon him.
18. Ex.IP14W1/11(OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 27/61
59. IP No.14 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 & 2 and IP No. 3 and he deposed on the same lines as
deposed by IP No. 4 in his cross-examination.
60. IP No. 15 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 15 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP15W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP15W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Mark A1: Copy of ration card.
6. Mark A2: Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU
7. Ex.IP15W1/3 ( OSR) : Copy of electricity bill issued by
BSES.
8. Mark A-3 : Photocopy of photographs of the property in
question.
9. Ex. IP15W1/5 : Copy of cash memo dated 19.02.1995, issued
by Hind Scale Corporation for weight and measures.
10. Ex. IP15W1/6 : Copy of certificate of verification the
Standard of Weight & Measures issued by the office of
Controller Legal Metrology, Government of NCT of Delhi.
11. Ex. IP15W1/7: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 15 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 13 ate page no. 4 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point G.
12. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before
LAC under Section 5A of L.A Act.
13. Mark -E: Copy of extract of joint survey by DMRC.
14. Ex.IP15W1/9 (OSR): Copy of allotment letter dated
18.02.2010.
15. Mark H: Copy of cheque no. 2618 dated 15.11.2008.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 28/61
IP No. 15 further deposed in his examination in chief
that he has not filed on record certain documents which are
mentioned in his affidavit as IP15W1/8, Ex. IP15W1/10 and Ex.
IP15W1/2 and Mark A-2 & Mark A-3.
61. Vide separate statement of IP No. 15, evidence on
behalf of IP No. 15 stands closed on 21.10.2016.
62. IP No. 15 has been cross-examined on behalf of IP No.
1 to 3 and he deposed on the same lines as deposed by IP No. 4
in his cross-examination.
63. IP No. 16 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 16 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP16W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP16W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Ex. IP16W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of OBC certificate.
6. Ex. IP18W1/2 : Copy of ration card already exhibited in the
statement of IP 18W1.
7. Ex.IP18W1/3 : Copy of electricity bill dated 20.03.1989
issued by BSES already Ex. IP18W1/3.
8. Ex.IP18W1/4 : Copy of electricity bill for the month of
August, 2007 issued by BSES already Ex. IP18W1/4.
9. Ex.IP18W1/5 : Copy of original bill of telephone no. 5962604
issued by MTNL in his grand father’s name.
10. Mark A-1, A2 and A-3 : photographs of the property in
question.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 29/61
11. Ex. IP16W1/3(OSR) : Copy of order form issued in the name
of his shop ( Vijay Store).
12. Ex. PW16W1/4 (OSR) Copy of cash memo dated
14.06.1998, in the name of Vijay General Store
13. Ex. IP16W1/5: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 16 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 22 ate page no. 5 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point G.
14. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before
LAC under Section 5A of L.A Act.
15. Mark -E: Copy of extract of joint survey by DMRC.
16. Mark A4: Copy of valuation report of immovable property
dated 24.02.2007.
17. Mark A5- Copy of notice dated 23.04.2009 by LAC, West
already marked as Mark A5 in the statement of IP18W1.
18. Ex.IP16W1/6 : Copy of allotment letter issued by DMRC
dated 18.02.2010.
64. IP No. 16 has been cross-examined by on behalf of IP
No. 1, 2 & 3 and in the cross-examination IP No. 16 deposed that
his grand father Bhoop Singh died 30 years back. IP No. 16
further deposed that Khasra No. 263 min, i.e. acquired land is in
the name of IP No. 1, 2 and 3 in the Revenue Record till its
acquisition. IP No. 16 admitted that the government acquired the
land twice for Metro Project. IP no. 16 further deposed that he
cannot tell the date of objections filed by him and other person
before LAC in respect of acquisition land in question.
65. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-examination that
the Abadi of Mundka Village in both sides of Rohtak Road is to
the length of app. About thousands sq. yards. And their land in
question is situated within the abadi of Lal Dora land of Village
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 30/61
Mundka again said their land situated on Old Abadi Lal Dora. IP
No. 16 further deposed that his alleged share of 14 sq. meter, out
of the acquired land of 14 sq. meters came to his father and after
death of his father, this share came to him. IP No. 16 further
deposed that they are two brothers. The house number of his
property in question is 920, Harijan Basti, Prajapati Mohal, no
demarcation was ever got done by him or his father in respect of
his house no. 920 measuring 14 meters to the effect that same
lies in Khasra No. 263 min.
66. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-examination
that the Exchange Deed Ex. IP5W1/1 was not executed in his
presence as he was not born when alleged exchanged deed was
executed. He further deposed that he had heard from his
grandfather Sh. Jage Ram and his father that the said exchange
deed was effected. IP No. 16 admitted the suggest that it is
correct that no Khasra number is mentioned in respect of land
alleged to have been received in exchange by his grand father. IP
No. 16 further deposed that he was not born in 1987 and he
cannot tell the location of the land given by his grand father in
exchange to the other side.
67. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-examination
that one Ram Kala who is a witness in the said exchanged deed
had died long back nor he has seen him although he was a
resident of Village Mundka. IP No. 16 further admitted that
neither his grandfather, his father nor he ever applied for
mutation in the Revenue Record in respect of the said exchange
deed for the land in question. IP No. 16 further deposed that he
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 31/61
was also not aware of his rights to get mutation. He further
deposed that the above said exchange deed is also not registered
nor any of the executent and witnesses has signed in his presence
nor he can recognize their thumb impression on the same.
68. IP no. 16 further deposed that he does not know
Urdu language. He further deposed that the translation of Urdu
document in English and Hindi was got done by IP No. 5 from
one Sh. Khan in Tis Hazari Court itself. IP No. 16 further
deposed that he cannot say whether the English and Hindi
translation is correct or not because he does not know Urdu
language. IP No. 16 further deposed that in respect of exchange
deed he was told by his forefathers and as such he has mentioned
in his affidavit in evidence but they never told Khasra No. 263 in
respect of this exchange deed.
69. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-examination
that he is not in a position to produce any document from
Revenue Record/Govt. Department that the land of acquired
Khasra no. 263 before the acquisition was in the name of his
forefather or in his name. IP No. 16 further deposed that he
cannot recollect the date of said partition among them,
descendant of Bhunda and when 14 sq. meter falls to his share
and among and between their family members.
70. IP No. 16 further deposed that the partition took place
among Jage Ram, Jagan Singh, Bhagwana, Bhoop Singh, Zeli
Singh and Chander Bhan. His grandfather Bhagwana had died
about 4-5 years back.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 32/61
71. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-examination that
he was told by his uncle Devanand about the notice Ex.
IP5W1/2. He admitted that this notice was neither signed by his
uncle in his presence nor received or dispatched. IP No. 16
further admitted that it is correct that in the photo marked as
Mark A1, A2 & A3, hi name as well as address and name Vijay
General Store was so painted by the painter on his shop.
72. In further cross-examination IP No. 16 further deposed
that he has not got copy of award from LAC personally either
from DC office or LAC office. He further deposed that he does
not know when and for what purpose, if any, he had gone to the
office of Deputy Commissioner Rampura, Delhi after issuance of
notice marked as Mark -A5 was received by him personally. He
further deposed that this notice was given by LAC through its
process server. IP No. 16 admitted that he alongwith other
person of their Prajapati Mohala had approached different
political person for allotment of the shops in lieu of acquisition.
The number, Khasra and address were given by them the Metro
Corporation. IP No. 16 further deposed that a shop was allotted
to him by metro. IP No. 16 further deposed that he has
knowledge whether Collector had released 50% compensation to
Krishan Kumar of the land in question and the same was recalled
back on their complaint.
73. In further cross-examination on behalf of IP No. 1 & 2,
IP No. 16 deposed that he does not know when Sh. Bhunde Ram
had died but he died 35 years back. IP No. 16 further deposed
that Bhunde Ram had eight children namely Jage Ram, Jagan
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 33/61
Singh, Bhagwana, Bhoop Singh, Zeli Singh, Ms Nitha Devi, Ms
Modi Devi and Phoolo Devi and name of wife of Sh. Bhunde
Ram, might be Smt. Gugo Devi & Jhunia. IP No. 16 further
deposed that at present all the children of late Sh. Bhunde Ram
have died. Name of children of late Sh. Jage Ram are Rajinder,
Jai Prakash, Mesar Devi, Kala, Bhateri, Babli, Guddi @ Savitri,
Choti. Sh. Jagan Singh was died 3-4 years back. Late Sh. Zeli
Singh died on 01.04.1988. IP No. 16 further deposed that he has
not filed any original document to prove his relationship with
late Sh. Bhunde Ram.
74. IP No. 16 in further cross-examination deposed that he
does not know Khasra number of the land owned by late Sh.
Bhunde Ram in the year 1951. In the year 1951, the area of the
land owned by Sh. Bhunde Ram was approximately 800 sq.
yards. He further deposed that he has not filed any revenue
record or any other document in respect of the said land
belonging to Sh. Bhunde Ram, however, he voluntarily deposed
that he has filed exchanged deed of the same. However, after
seeing the Ex. IP5W1/1, IP No. 16 admitted that no Khasra no. is
mentioned in Ex. IP5W1/1 regarding the land in question. IP No.
16 denied the suggestion that in the year 1951, late Sh. Bhunde
Ram was neither owner nor in possession of any land in Village
Mundka or that the exchange deed Ex. IP5W1/1 is false and
fabricated and manufactured to file the claim in respect of the
acquired land. IP No. 16 further deposed in his cross-
examination that late Sh. Bhunde Ram has not filed any court
case against Sh. Subh Ram or his successor, in his life time
pertaining to the acquired land for mutation or ownership.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 34/61
However, he voluntarily deposed that as there was no dispute so
there is no requirement. IP No. 16 further deposed that neither
he nor his father has filed any such case before acquisition nor
Sh. Bhunde has filed any such case. He denied the suggest that
Sh. Bhune Ram did not ever enter in any exchange in respect of
the acquired/exchange land from Sh. Subh Ram the predecessor
of IP No. 1 & 2.
75. Vide separate statement of IP No. 16, evidence on
behalf of IP No. 16 stands closed on 18.11.2016.
76. IP No. 17 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 17 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP17W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP17W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Ex. IP17W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of his Pan card.
6. Mark A-2 : Copy of electricity bill issued by DESU already
marked as Mark A-2 in the statement of IP15W1
8. Ex.IP15W1/3 (OSR) : Copy of electricity bill issued by BSES
already Ex. IP15W1/3.
10. Mark A-13 : photographs of the property in question.
12. Ex. PW15W1/5 (OSR) Copy of cash memo dated
19.02.1995, issued by Hind Scale Corporation for weight and
measures.
13. Ex. IP15W1/6: Copy of certificate of verification the
Standard of Weight & Measures issued by office of Controller
Legal Metrology, Govt. of NCT is already Ex. IP15W1/6.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 35/61
14. Ex. IP17W1/3: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 17 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 15 ate page no. 4 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point H.
14. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before
LAC under Section 5A of L.A Act.
15. Mark -E: Copy of extract of joint survey by DMRC.
17. Mark X- Copy of notice dated 23.04.2009 by LAC, West.
18. Ex.IP15W1/9 : Copy of allotment letter issued by DMRC
dated 18.02.2010.
18. Mark H : Copy of cheque no. 002618 dated 15.11.2008.
77. IP No. 17 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of IP
No. 1 to 3 and he deposed on the same lines as deposed by IP
No. 4 in his cross-examination.
78. Vide separate statement of IP No.17, evidence on behalf
of IP No. 17 stands closed on 25.11.2016.
79. IP No. 18 in order to prove his claim examined
himself as IP No. 18 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
IP18W1/A and relied upon the documents
1. Ex. IP5W1/1 ( total seven pages) : The copy of Exchange
deed alongwith translation in Hindi and English language.
2. Ex. IP5W1/2 ( OSR): The copy of notice to Sh. Bhagwana.
3. Mark A: Copy of proceedings Lok Sabha dated 26.11.1981.
4. Ex. IP18W1/1 ( OSR): Copy of election card.
5. Mark A- Copy of old election card.
6. Ex. IP18W1/2 ( OSR): Copy of ration card.
7. Ex.IP18W1/3(OSR) : Copy of electricity bill dated
20.03.1989 issued by BSES.
8. Ex.IP18W1/4 (OSR) : Copy of electricity bill for the month of
August, 2007 issued by BSES.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 36/61
9. Ex.IP18W1/5 : Copy of original bill of telephone no. 5962604
issued by MTNL in his name.
10. Mark A-1, A2 and A-3 : photographs of the property in
question.
11. Ex. IP18W1/7: Copy of relevant extract of award no.
3/DCW/2008-09 and the name of IP No. 18 is reflecting at point
Sr. No. 19 ate page no. 4 of the said award and is duly circulated
at point I.
14. Mark C & D: Copy of objections and reply filed before
LAC under Section 5A of L.A Act.
15. Mark -E: Copy of extract of joint survey by DMRC.
16. Mark A4: Copy of valuation report of immovable property
dated 24.02.2007.
17. Mark A5- Copy of notice dated 23.04.2008 by LAC, West
already marked as Mark A5 in the statement of IP18W1.
18. Mark H-
80. IP No. 18 has been duly cross-examined by IP No. 1 to
3 and he deposed on the same lines as deposed by IP No. 4 & IP
No. 16 in his cross-examination.
81. Vide separate statement of Sh. D.S. Lakra, ld. Counsel
for IP No. 4 to 18, evidence on behalf of IP No. 4 to 18 stands
closed on 12.04.2017.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
82. I have heard final arguments from both sides and have
perused the entire case file. IP No. 4 to 18 have also filed joint
written submissions which are duly considered while passing this
judgment.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 37/61
83. Written Submissions on behalf of IP No. 4 to IP No. 18.
84. Ld. Counsel for IP No. 4 to IP No. 18 has filed written
submissions and it is averred in the written submissions that the
present reference petition u/s 30 -31 L.A. Act has been filed
being dispute among the interested persons between IP No. 1, 2,
3 & IP No. 4 to 18 and during the proceedings of the case all the
IPs filed their respective claims on dated 01.06.2012 and dated
02.08.2012. All the IPs have tendered their respective evidence.
85. It is further averred in the written submissions that IP
No. 1 & IP No. 2 stated in their evidence that they are the joint
owner to the extent of half share in Khasra No. 263 total area 1
bigh 7 biswas land situated revenue estate of Village Mundka and
out of which only (00-04-7) biswas i.e. 4 biswa 7 biswani land
has been acquired vide award no. 3/DCW/2008-09, therefore, IP
No. 1 & 2 are exclusively entitled to get ¼ share each out of
compensation as assessed by the Ld. LAC.
86. It is further averred in the written submission that
during the cross-examination of IP No. 1, IP No. 1 stated that the
property is in question is an ancestral property, in the name of his
grandfather late Subh Ram. The status of land is residential. The
front portion of his land was acquired by DMRC and on the
back side, IP No. 1 is residing but they were not residing due to
the dispute with Krishan, who is his uncle and Co-sharer in the
said property.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 38/61
87. It is further averred in the written submissions that IP
No. 3 stated in their evidence that he is the joint Bhumidhar/Co-
owner to the extent of half share in Khasra No. 263 total area 1
bigh 7 biswas land situated revenue estate of Village Mundka and
Khatoni as well as Shirjra pertains to land in owner has already
been exhibited as Ex. IPW-W1/1 & Ex. IP-W1/2, and IP No. 3 is
entitled to get ½ share each out of compensation as assessed by
the Ld. LAC.
88. It is further averred in the written submissions that the
main common plea of IP No. 5 and also all IP No. 4 to 18 are that
their forefathers late Shri Bhunde Ram S/o Shri Behuja got the
above said land by way of exchange deed by mutual transfer on
dated 31.07.1951 which is Ex. IP-5/W1, from the forefathers of
IP No. 1, 2 & 3, namely, Shri Subh Ram S/o Shri Shiv Ram, who
was the then recorded owner of the land and since then the
present claimant IP No. 4 to 18 were in possession and got
successory right during the course of time to the extent of his
successor right in the land in question as well as structure
existing on the land. It is further averred that IP No. 1, 2 & 3 on
the basis of stray entry, there name remain in revenue record. It
is further submitted that IP No. 1, 2 & 3 cannot be allowed to
take advantage, on the basis of entry in revenue record, to get
compensation of the land in question in which they never
remained in possession.
89. In the written submissions, following claim has been
made in the land in question, on behalf of IP No. 4 to 18.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 39/61
IP NO. 4 Sh. Samai Singh has claimed 15 sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 11
Sq. meter.
IP No. 5 Sh. Mahvir Singh has claimed 13 sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 12
Sq. meter alongwith structure of Rs.1,06,897.34 as shown in Sr.
No. 51 at page no. 14 in the Award which is exhibited as Ex.
IPW5W1/15 under the name and title of ” Ms Deepak General
Store (Mr. Mahaveer Singh)” alongwith statutory benefits as
forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 6 Sh. Ajesh has claimed 8 Sq. meter in the claim petition
but by way of written submission he is now claiming 8 Sq. meter
alongwith the structure of Rs.14,457.83 as shown in serial no. 48
at page no. 13 in the Award under the name of Ms Rajesh
General Store alongwith statutory benefits as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 7 Ms Parmeshwari has claimed 32 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 21
Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.50,436/- as shown in
serial no. 47 at page no. 13 in the Award under the name of Mrs
Parmeshwari W/o Mr. Chanderbhan alongwith statutory benefits
as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 8 Sh. Dharamvir has claimed 8 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 8
Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.16,147.74 as shown in
serial no. 51 at page no. 14 in the Award under the title of
Dharmveer Matka Bhandar alongwith statutory benefits as
forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 9 Sh. Devanand has claimed 28 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 23
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 40/61
Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.36,341.11/- as shown in
serial no. 49 at page no. 14 in the Award under the name of Ms
Suraj General Store ( Mr. Devanand) alongwith statutory benefits
as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 10 Sh. Dharampal has claimed 8 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 8
Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.9,304.22 as shown in
serial no. 46 at page no. 13 in the Award under the name of Mr.
Dharampal S/o Mr. Chander Bhan alongwith statutory benefits as
forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 11 Sh. Rohtash has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 12
Sq. meter.
IP No. 12 Sh. Narender Singh has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 11 Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.93,223.06/-
as shown in serial no. 50 at page no. 14 in the Award under the
name of Ms Sanju General Store ( Mr. Narender Singh)
alongwith statutory benefits as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 13 Sh. Rajender Singh has claimed 20 Sq. meter in the
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 15 Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.42,395/- as
shown in serial no. 54 at page no. 14 in the Award under the
name of Ms. Vinod Cycle (Mr. Rajender Kumar) store alongwith
statutory benefits as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 14 Sh. Vinod Kumar has claimed 8 Sq. meter in the
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 8 Sq.
IP NO. 15 Sh. Hariom Singh has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 41/61
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 14 Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.48,710.50 as
shown in serial no. 53 at page no. 14 in the Award under the
name of Ms Sanjeet General Store ( Mr, Hariom Singh)
alongwith statutory benefits as forwarded by LAC.
IP NO. 16 Sh. Vijay Kumar has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 9 Sq. meter
IP NO. 17 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the
claim petition but by way of written submission he is now
claiming 9 Sq. meter
IP NO. 18 Sh. Jai Prakash has claimed 14 Sq. meter in the claim
petition but by way of written submission he is now claiming 14
Sq. meter alongwith the structure of Rs.90,276.50 as shown in
serial no. 55 at page no. 14 in the Award under the name of Ms
Vijay General Store ( Mr. Jai Prakash) alongwith statutory
benefits as forwarded by LAC.
90. It is further averred in the written submissions that
therefore, to meet out the correct figure and in the interest of
justice the IP No. 4 to 18 had earlier claimed excess area but now
claiming only 183 Sq. meter i.e. 4 biswa 7 biswani, as per the
area of forwarded by the LAC, West, Delhi.
91. It is further averred in the written submissions that the
main arguments on behalf of IP No. 1, 2 & 3 that IP No. 1, 2 & 3
are the recorded owner of the land comprising Khasra No. 263
min out of which 4 biswas 7 biswani i.e. 183.36 Sq. meter has
been acquired which is subject matter under reference. It is
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 42/61
further averred in the written submission that IP No. 4 to 18 have
already got benefited and have already availed the benefit of
alternative shops in lieu of acquisition.
92. It is further averred in the written submissions that IP
No. 1, 2 & 3 have argued that the exchange deed Ex. IP-5W1/1
has not mentioned any Khasra no. 263 min and cannot be read as
a title documents. It is further averred that possession of IP No.
4 to 18 is admitted fact, therefore, the ratio in compensation
pertaining to the land may be awarded between IP No. 1, 2 &3
and IP No. 4 to 18.
93. It is further averred in the written submissions that IP
No. 4 to 18 are in continuous physical possession on the land
since the land had been exchanged by their forefathers since
31.07.1951 which is Ex. IP-5W1/1 being successor-in-interest of
late Shri Bhunde.
94. It is further averred in the written submissions that the
DMRC alao allotted the alternative shops to the IP No. 4 to 18
under the rehabilitation policy and effected from their livelihood.
95. It is further averred in the written submissions that
LAC, West has already assessed the structure value in favour of
IP No. 4 to 18 being possession of the land as the site which is
sown at serial no. 46 to 55 at page no. 14 in the Award in
question, therefore, IP No. 1, 2 & 3 are not entitled to get cost of
structure and even they have not any claimed any structure value
in their claim.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 43/61
96. It is further averred in the written submissions that
during the pendency of the case, some of the IP’s died and the
respective application under order 22 rule 4 CPC has already
been allowed and amended memo of parties is already on record.
97. Ld. Counsel for IP No. 4 to 18 relied upon the judgment
titled as Hardwari Lal deceased through LR’s V/s Rai Singh,
deceased through L.R’s 2009(107) DRJ 39 (DB) by which in
land acquisition matter, the possession was recognized by the
court and the compensation has been paid to the person who
found in possession. It is, therefore, submitted that IP No. 4 to 18
are also entitled to get compensation of land also i.e. 4 biswa 7
biswani i.e. 183.36 Sq. meter land comprising in Khasra No. 263
min and the compensation of the said land has been assessed @
Rs. 1183/- per sq. meter which amount to Rs. 2,16,914/-
alongwith statutory benefits and interest accrued during the
pendency of the case may also be awarded to IP No. 4 to 18.
98. FINDINGS ON ISSUES
FINDING ON ISSUES NO. 1
1. Which of the IP is entitled for the compensation
amount in respect of the acquired land and to what an extent?
OPP
99. The IP No. 1 & 2 are together claiming half share in
the compensation amount for the acquired land by LAC, West.
The IP No. 3 is claiming assessed half share in the compensation
amount determined for the acquired land by LAC, West.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 44/61
100. The witness IP1W1 examined, on behalf of IP No. 1 &
2, has deposed in his examination in chief that he alongwith his
brother Sh. Sanjay/ IP No. 2 are the joint Bhumidhars/co-owners
to the extent of half share in Khasra No. 263, total land ad-
measuring 1 bigha 7 biawas, situated in Village Mundka, Delhi.
101. The IP1W1 has exhibited copy of Khatoni, as Ex.
IP1W1/1 and the Aks Sizra as Ex. IP1W1/2.
102. The IP1W1 has further deposed in his examination in
chief that IP No. 1 is entitled for 1/4th share in the compensation
amount and IP No. 2 is also entitled for 1/4th share in the
compensation amount.
103. The IP3W1 has has deposed in his examination in
chief that he is the joint Bhumidhars/co-owners to the extent of
half share in Khasra No. 263, total land ad-measuring 1 bigha 7
biawas, situated in Village Mundka, Delhi.
104. The IP3W1 has relied upon copy of Khatoni, Ex.
IP1W1/1 and the Aks Sizra Ex. IP1W1/2.
105. The IP3W1 has further deposed in his examination in
chief that he is entitled for 1/2th share in the compensation
amount of the acquired land.
106. It is not disputed on behalf of IP no. 4 to 18 that the
land in question was initially belong to late Sh. Subh Ram who
was grandfather of IP No. 1, 2 & 3.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 45/61
107. I have perused the copy of Khatoni Ex. IP1W1/1. This
Khatoni is of the year 2005-06 of Village Mundka, Delhi. As per
this Khatoni, the land in Khasra No. 263, is 1 bigha 7 biswas. Sh.
Om Prakash S/o Sh. Rishal Singh/IP no. 1 and Sh. Sanjay S/o
Sh. Rishal Singh /IP No. 2 are co-owners to the extent of 1/4th
share each in the said land. The remaining ½ share in the said
land belongs to Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh/IP No.
3.
108. The witnesses examined on behalf of IP no. 4 to IP No.
18 have deposed in their examination in chief on the similar
lines that their fore-father late Sh. Bhunde Ram S/o Behuja had
got the acquired land by way of exchange from the then recorded
owner Sh. Subh Ram @ Shiv Ram, by way of mutual transfer
vide exchange deed dated 31.07.1951. It is further deposed by
them that the said mutual exchange/settlement was executed
between the parties with their own will and fore-father of the
claimants came into possession of the exchanged land, after the
execution of exchange deed but the mutation of the said land
could not be implemented in the revenue record, on the basis of
said exchange deed.
109. It is further deposed by the witnesses on behalf of IP
No. 4 to 18 that their forefather were in possession of the
acquired land and after the death of the fore-father, the present
claimants are still in continuous physically possession of the
acquired land and have got successory rights, during the course
of time to the extent of their respective shares in the acquired
land as well as in the structure existing on the said land.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 46/61
110. During examination, the witnesses examined on behalf
of IP No. 4 to 18 deposed on the similar lines that it is correct
that no Khasra number is mentioned in respect of land alleged to
have been received in exchange by late Sh. Bhunde Ram. The
witnesses during cross-examination further deposed that they
were not born in 1951 and they cannot tell the location of the
land given by late Sh. Bhunde Ram, grandfather, in exchange to
the other side. They further deposed that neither their
grandfather nor their father nor they have ever applied for
mutation in the revenue record, in respect of the said exchange
deed for the land in question.
111. During examination, the witnesses examined on
behalf of IP No. 4 to 18 further deposed that the said exchange
deed is neither registered nor any of the executant and witnesses
have signed in their presence nor they can recognize their thumb
impression on the said exchange deed. They further deposed that
they do not know the Urdu language and they do not know
whether the English and Hindi translation of the said exchange
deed is correct or not. They further deposed that their forefather
never told Khasra No. 263 is of the exchange deed.
112. No witness of the exchange deed has been examined
on behalf of IP No. 4 to 18 to prove the exchange deed Ex.
IP5W1/1. The IP No. 4 to 18 even have not filed original
exchange deed. The alleged exchange deed is un-registered.
Even in the English and Hindi translation of the exchange deed,
Khasra no. 263 is not mentioned. In view of the above said facts
& testimony of witnesses, it is held that IP No. 4 to 18 have
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 47/61
failed to prove the exchange deed Ex. IP5W1/1. The IP No,. 4 to
18 have failed to prove that the acquired land was given in
exchange to late Sh. Bhunde Ram by late Sh. Subh Ram.
113. It is admitted fact of the parties that the acquired land
is in the name of IP No. 1 to 3, in the revenue record i.e. Khatoni
Ex. IP1W1. It is also admitted case of IP No. 4 to 18 that neither
their forefather, nor their father and nor they have ever applied
for recording their names as owners of the acquired land, in the
revenue record. The revenue record has also not ever been
challenged by IP No. 4 to 18. The IP No. 4 to 18 have not led any
evidence to prove that they were owners of the acquired land at
the time of acquisition of the land.
114. In view of the above said facts and discussion, it is
held that IP No. 4 to 18 were not the owners of the acquired land,
at the time of the acquisition of the said land by LAC, West.
115. IP No. 4 to 18 are claiming their possession over the
acquired land since 1951. They are claiming that their
grandfather/late Sh. Bhunde Ram was in possession of acquired
land since 1951 and thereafter their father & after that they
remained in possession of acquired land till the date of
acquisition of land by LAC, West.
116. The documents relied upon by IP No. 4 to 18, do not
prove that these documents pertain to property situated in Khasra
No. 263 as nothing is mentioned in these documents regarding
Khasra No. 263. There is no other evidence on record to prove
that these documents are of property situated in Khasra No. 263.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 48/61
117. The IP No. 4 to 18 have not led any evidence to prove
their possession over the acquired land since 1951.
118. During cross-examination IP1W1 has deposed that ”
we were not residing therein due to the dispute with Mr. Krishan,
who is the son of my uncle and co-sharer in the said property”.
119. IP1W1 has further deposed that he has never instituted
any case regarding ejectment of objector no. 4 to 18. He further
deposed that ” the objector nos. 4 to 18 are in alleged possession
for the last more than 20 years. I do not know what they are
doing on the occupying land. I had not applied before the Land
and Building Department against the acquisition of land in
question”.
120. The IP1W1 and IP3W1 have deposed during cross-
examination that they have never filed representation or agitated
before the ld. Governor of Delhi against the acquisition of land in
question.
121. IP3W1 has deposed during cross-examination that he
has not filed any petition or objection against the valuation
assessed in favour of IP No. 4 to 18 by the DMRC.
122. During acquisition proceedings, in pursuance to the
notices issued u/s 9 & 10 of the L.A. Act, the claims were filed
by IP No. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 & 11 to 18 and no claim was filed by IP
No. 1 & 2.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 49/61
123. Vide Award No. 03/DC(W)/2008-09, the LAC, West
has assessed the value of the structure existing on the acquired
land being as residential houses, shops and boundary walls etc.
In the said award, the LAC, West has assessed the value of the
structure, existing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition
of the land, in favour of IP No. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 18.
124. The above said assessment of value of the structure,
existing on the acquired land, has not been challenged by the IP
No. 1 to 3. In view of the above said facts, it is proved that the
structure of the above said IPs, in the form of residential houses
shops and boundary walls etc. were existing at the time of
acquisition of the land and they were in possession of the
acquired land, at the time of acquisition proceedings conducted
by LAC, West.
125. In the claim petition filed by IP no. 1, 2 & 3, they have
not disclosed any fact regarding their possession over the
acquired land. The IP No. 1, 2 & 3 have not filed any document
except the Khatoni to prove their possession over the acquired
land.
126. The IP No. 1 & 2 has admitted the possession of IP No.
4 to 18 over the acquired land for the last more than 20 years.
The IP No.3 has not cross-examined IP1W1 on the above said
fact and has not disputed the above said fact.
127. In view of the above said facts, testimonies of
witnesses, it is proved that IP No. 4 to 18 had been in possession
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 50/61
of the acquired land for more than 20 years, on the date of
acquisition of the land.
128. Ld. Counsel for IP No. 4 to 18 has argued that IP No.
1 to 3 are not entitled to receive any compensation amount in
respect of the acquired land. He further argued that only IP No. 4
to 18 are entitled to obtain the entire compensation amount. He
relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled
Hardwari Lal (Deceased) Through Legal … vs Rai Singh
(Deceased) Through Legal, RFA No. 348/1987, decided on 5
December, 2008.
129. I have perused the above said judgment titled Hardwari
Lal (Deceased) Through Legal … vs Rai Singh (Deceased)
Through Legal, RFA No. 348/1987, decided on 5 December,
2008, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
“9. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the
appellant produced on record copy of khatauni for the
years 1965-1969 which clearly shows that the appellant
was the owner/bhumidar in possession of Khasra no.
710/188. There is no Khasra girdwari on record which
shows that there remained temple on the land in dispute
at any time. The Govt. took the possession of the land
from the appellant. The date of commencement of
Bhumidar rights have been shown from 1954-55.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent argued that the land was never in the
possession of the appellant. The land was in the name
and possession of Smt. Chander Kali, widow of Sh. Siri
Shand and Smt. Bharyan, widow of Raja Singh who
donated the said property for the construction of a
mandir and dharmshala. Since then the temple stands on
this khasra. The land has never been cultivated nor it
was possessed by the appellant.
11. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the only contention of the appellant is
that he is the Bhumidar of the land as his name stands
recorded in the khasra Girdwari for the year 1967-68LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 51/61
for which no record has been produced by him. The
entries of the khasra Girdwari shows the land recorded
as ‘ghairmumkin Mandir’. The Tehsildar had reported
that the land had not been cultivated for the last 15
years and it was ‘Banjar Qadim’. No regular suit has
been filed by the appellant for possession. The
statement of the witnesses recorded by Tehsildar shows
that the land was cultivated by Ms. Imarti and Chander
Kali. In the year 1958, the land was nominated by these
two women for the construction of a temple and no
record or evidence prior to 1967-68 has been produced
by the appellant to support his case. Only the statement
of Up-Pradhan of the village supports the case of the
appellant.
12. We consider that in the present case, it is not in
dispute that the land in question has not been cultivated
by the appellant. The land is being used for charitable
purposes since 1953-54 and is held to be the charitable
land by the Revenue Assistant and Additional Collector
against which no appeal is preferred by the appellant.
The appellant was not in possession of the land. The
land is used as a temple. Even in the report of the
Tehsildar, the land has been shown as ‘ghairmumkin
Mandir’ and ‘Banjar Qadim’.
13. The case of the appellant is that he is the Bhumidar of
the suit property and the respondents are only in
possession. On the documents placed on record, the
learned trial court has come to a right conclusion that in a
reference under Section 30, compensation be given to
Shiv Mandir Trust and not to the appellant. Mere
assertion of the appellant that he is the Bhumidar cannot
entitle him for compensation.
14. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. The Trial Court is right in observing that
only Shiv Mandir is entitled to receive the compensation
through its representative.
130. The facts of the above said judgment are
distinguishable and not fully applicable on the facts of the
present case. In the above said judgment, the land was being
used for charitable purpose since 1953-54 and the land was held
to be charitable land by the revenue Assistant and Additional
Collector and against the order of the Revenue Authorities, no
appeal was preferred by the appellant. As per report of the
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 52/61
Tehsildar also, the land was shown as Ghairmumkin Mandir and
Banjar Qadim. But in the present case, the revenue record is in
the name of IP No. 1 to 3 and said revenue record has never been
challenged by IP No. 4 to 18. The IP No. 4 to 18 have never
applied for mutation of the land in question. It is also not proved
that IP no. 4 to 18 and their fathers and forefathers had been in
possession of the acquired land since 1951. Hence, the facts of
the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the above
said case.
131. In a case titled Haryana Wakf Board Vs State of
Haryana & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 19342/2017, decided on
2.11.2017, the Hon’ble Apex court has held as under:
“8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, a person in settled possession can be
disbursed some compensation on account of
displacement and deprivation of the possession by
virtue of acquisition of land. However, the quantum
of compensation to be apportioned between the
lessee or a person in settled possession of the land
and owner would depend upon nature of rights
existing with a person in possession under the
prevalent laws and arrangement under which he is
holding the land.”
132. In a case titled as Ramacharya Narayana Charya Burli
And vs State Of Mysore And Ors. on 13 March, 1964 AIR1965
KANT1, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as
follows:
(5) Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act
afford full guidance for the fixation of compensation
in respect of a property acquired under the provisions
of the Act. There is, however, no provision in the
Land Acquisition Act defining the grounds on the
basis of which the total amount of compensationLAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 53/61
awarded for the property should be apportioned
amongst persons having different interests in such
property. The compensation fixed by the award made
under Section II will have no reference to the
character or the nature of right in which the property
acquired is held or occupied by any particular
claimant. Section 30 which deals with dispute as to
apportionment empowers the Collector to make a
reference to a Civil Court. Section 18 of the Act
enables any person interested in the property
acquired but has not accepted the award, to make an
application to the Collector for a reference to the
Court for determination of his objections, whether it
be with regard to the measurement of the land the
amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is
payable or the apportionment of the compensation
amongst the persons interested, stating the grounds
on which objection to the award is taken.
It would thus follow that a party aggrieved by the
apportionment at a particular ratio in the
compensation amount applying to the Collector for a
reference must state the grounds on which he objects
to the same. Section 21 restricts the scope of the
enquiry in every such enquiry to a consideration of
the interest of the persons affected by the objections.
So what the Court has to do in an enquiry is to
determine the value of various interests claimed by
each of the interested persons in the light of the
evidence adduced in the case. As was observed by
Shah, J. (as he then was) in Dossibai Nanabhoy v. P.
M. Bharucha, 60 Bom LR 1208:
“In apportioning the compensation the Court has to
give to each claimant the value of the interest which
he has lost by compulsory acquisition. So stated, the
proposition may appear simple; but in its practical
application numerous complicated problems arise in
apportioning the compensation awarded. The
difficulty experienced is due to the nature of a
variety of interests, rights and claims to land which
have to be valued in terms of money. The
compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition is
the value of all the interests which are extinguished
and that compensation has to be distributed equitably
amongst persons having interest therein and the
Court must proceed to apportion the compensation
so that the aggregate value of all interests is equal to
the amount of compensation awarded.
x x x x x x But in the valuation of competing interest
which from its very nature is dependent uponLAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 54/61
indefinite factors and uncertain data, considerable
difficulty is encountered. Indisputably, in
apportioning compensation the Court cannot proceed
upon Hypothetical considerations but must proceed
as far as possible to make an accurate determinations
of the value of the respective interests which are lost.
The Court must, in each case, having regard to the
circumstances and the possibility of a precise
determination of the value having regard to the
materials available, adopt that method of valuation
which equitably distributes the compensation
between the persons entitled thereo. x x x x”.
The Calcutta High Court in Santosh Kumar v. Nanda
Kishore, has also taken the view that remote
possibility of any interest in favour of the landlord or
the tenant must be disregarded.
(6) Incidents of proprietary rights of ownership
enumerated in R.A. 161 of 1955 as requiring
consideration in favour of the landlord fall into two
categories. The right to possible contingent reversion
and the right to enhance rent normally depend upon
the terms of contract of lease while the right to
minerals and the right of resumption in case the lands
is a service inam, depend upon the terms of the grant
made by the Government in favour of the Inamdar or
the Watandar. Therefore if the landlord claims
enhanced share in the Compensation amount in
respect of rights arising under or relating to the
contract of lease, he has to set up and prove what are
all the special considerations which weigh in
awarding him a higher share in the compensation. In
respect of rights which are incidental to the tenure of
the grant in his favour or to the property held by him
which should enter into a determination of the market-
value of the property under Ss. 23 and 24, he has to
put forward his claims before the Land Acquisition
Officer it would be unfair to allow him to make such a
claim only at the time of apportionment of
compensation between himself and his tenant. He
must also establish his right to get the rent enhanced.
Further his right to reversion, before it can be taken
into consideration should not be so remote as to be
valueless.
133. In a case titled Smt. Vidyawati And Ors. vs Collector
Of Agra And Ors. on 5 December, 1978, AIR1979SC733, the
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 55/61
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
1. The only point in this appeal which relates to
compensation for land acquisition is as to whether
the entire amount refixed by way of enhancement by
the High Court should go to the landlady-appellant
only, or should be shared between her and the
tenants such, as have proved their claims before the
Land Acquisition Officer (The Wakf Board does not
come into the picture as its appeal has been
dismissed).
2. The brief facts are that the Land Acquisition
Officer fixed compensation at a certain rate for the
land acquired but he also apportioned the amount of
compensation between the landlady, the owner, and
the tenants on the land. Thereafter, a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act led to an
increase in the rate of compensation. But the learned
District Judge made a further direction that the entire
compensation so raised would be paid to the landlady
forgetting the fact that the tenants who had been
recognized also had been found entitled to a share.
3. The Collector filed an appeal to the High Court
asking for the dilation of this direction for the payment
of the entire sum to the landlady. The High Court,
while enhancing the compensation substantially in
favour of the land owner, deleted the direction made
by the district court to the effect that the entire
compensation shall be paid over to the landlady. We
think this was done very rightly. There is no doubt that
apportionment does not come into the picture in a
reference under Section 18. Factually, there is no doubt
that there are some tenants on the land. In this view,
the direction given by the High Court that the entire
amount shall not be payable to the landlay and that the
direction given by the district court to that effect shall
be deleted was just and legal.
4. To do final justice in terms of the law and in the
circumstances of this case, we direct that the Collector
shall pay to the land owner only the share that is due to
her out of the total compensation and shall further
proceed to determine the share due to the tenants such
as were on the land on the date of the notification, and
pay to them their share of the compensation in
accordance with what is due to them. With theseLAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 56/61
directions, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
134. It is already held above that the IP No. 4 to 18 were in
possession of land for more than 20 years till the acquisition of
the land by the LAC, West. The IP No. 1 to 3 have never filed
any suit for seeking recovery of possession of acquired land from
IP No. 4 to 18 despite possession of 20 years. The IP No. 4 to 18
have acquired valuable possessory title over the property
acquired, at the time of acquisition of land by LAC, West and
this possessory title cannot be disturbed and IP No. 4 to 18
cannot be deprived of the possession of the acquired land without
paying them some compensation.
135. IP No. 1 to 3 were the recorded owners of the acquired
land, at the time of acquisition of land by LAC, West, so they are
also entitled to obtain some compensation amount of the
acquired land.
136. Now the question arises, in what proportion, the
compensation amount shall be distributed between the IP No. 1
to 18 as all IPs have some interest in the acquired land.
137. Considering the fact that IP No. 1 to 3 are recorded
owners of the acquired land but not in possession of the said land
and also by considering the fact that IP No. 4 to 18 had been in
possession of the acquired land for more than last 20 years, till
the acquisition of land by the LAC, West, and no suit for
recovery of possession has been ever filed by IP No. 1 to 3
against IP No. 4 to 18, despite having possession for more than
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 57/61
20 years, this court is of the view that IP No. 1, 2 & 3 are entitled
for 50% share in the compensation amount and IP No. 4 to 18 are
entitled for 50 % share in the compensation amount for
acquisition of land in question by LAC, West vide award No.
03/DC(W)/2008-09.
138. In the said 50 % share of compensation, IP No. 1 & 2
shall be entitled for 1/4th share each and IP no. 3 shall be entitled
for ½ share.
139. In the said 50 % share of compensation, IP No. 4 to 18
shall be entitled as per their share in acquired land as mentioned
below:
IP NO. 4 Sh. Samai Singh shall be entitled for 11 Sq. meter.
IP No. 5 Sh. Mahvir Singh shall be entitled for 12 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 6 Sh. Ajesh shall be entitled for 8 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 7 Ms Parmeshwari shall be entitled for 21 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 8 Sh. Dharamvir shall be entitled for 8 Sq.meter.
IP NO. 9 Sh. Devanand shall be entitled for 23 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 10 Sh. Dharampal shall be entitled for 8 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 11 Sh. Rohtash shall be entitled for 12 Sq. meter.
IP No. 12 Sh. Narender Singh shall be entitled for 11 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 13 Sh. Rajender Singh shall be entitled for 15 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 14 Sh. Vinod Kumar shall be entitled for 8 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 15 Sh. Hariom Singh shall be entitled for 14 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 16 Sh. Vijay Kumar shall be entitled for 9 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 17 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar shall be entitled for 9 Sq. meter.
IP NO. 18 Sh. Jai Prakash shall be entitled for 14 Sq. meter.
Issue no. 1 has been decided accordingly.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 58/61
140. FINDING ON ISSUE NO. 2.
Issue no. 2: Which of the IP is entitled to the compensation
amount in respect of structures on the acquired land and to what
an extent? OPP
141. Vide Award No.03/DC(W) 2008-09, dated 19.05.2009,
the LAC, West has assessed the value of the structure on the
acquired land being as residential houses, shops and boundary
walls etc. In the said award, the LAC, West has assessed the
value of the structure, existing on the acquired land at the time of
acquisition of the land, in favour of IP No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14 & 18. At item No. 48, the value for structure has been
assessed for Mr. Rajesh running of firm M/s Rajesh General
Store. However, the name of IP No. 6 is Mr. Ajesh. IP no. 6 has
claimed that he was running the firm M/s Rajesh General Sore in
the acquired land. If, there is no other person with the name of
Mr. Rajesh has claimed compensation for structure value, then,
Mr. Ajesh, IP No. 6 is entitled to receive such compensation for
structure value.
142. The above said assessment of value of the structure,
existing on the acquired land, has not been challenged by the IP
No. 1 to 3.
143. The IP No. 1 to 3 have not led any evidence to prove
that the structure existing upon the acquired land were made by
them. It is already held above in issue no. 1 that the IP no. 1 to 3
were not in possession of the acquired land at the time of
acquisition of the land in question.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 59/61
144. There is no reason to disbelieve the findings of LAC,
West, made in award no. 03/DC(W)/2008-09 regarding structure
of IP No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 & 18, existing on the
acquired land, at the time of acquisition of land, in the form of
residential houses shops and boundary walls etc. So the above
said IPs are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation
determined by the LAC, West for their structure existing on the
acquired land as per Award No. 03/DC(W)/2008-09.
145. In view of the above said facts and observation, issue
no. 2 is decided in favour of IP No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 &
18.
146. RELIEF
147. In view of the findings on issue no. 1 & 2, the IPs
no. 1 to 18 are entitled for following reliefs:
(1) IP No. 1 to 18 are entitled to receive compensation amount
for acquisition of land in question by LAC/West vide award No.
03/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 19.05.2009 as per para no. 132 & 133
of this judgment.
(2) IP No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 & 18 are entitled to
receive compensation amount for their structure existing on the
acquired land as per the amount determined by LAC, West vide
Award No. 03/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 19.05.2009.
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 60/61
148. The reference petition stands answered accordingly.
No orders as to costs.
149. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition
Collector (West) for information.
150. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 14:55:26
Announced in the open court
+0530
today 24th December, 2024
(SHIV KUMAR)
DJ-02,West/Delhi
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi
LAC No. 220/16 UOI Vs Om Prakash & Ors. 61/61