Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 19, 2018 Pronounced on: December 19, 2018 + W.P.(C) 5835/1999 UNION OF INDIA ANR. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate versus RAVINDER KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanath Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manvi Gola and Mr. Vinayak, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT1 Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 vide order of 12th April, 1983 holds that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 97, 98 and 122 of Village Toot Sarai, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’) was not acquired and it does not stand proved that Mohammad Illyas, etc., i.e. owners of the ‘subject land’, had received any compensation. The revisional court vide impugned order of 28th November, 1997 has concluded that the Competent Officer’s order does not suffer from any illegality or any perversity and has thus, dismissed petitioners’ revision petition.
2. The challenge to Competent Officer’s order of 12th April, 1983 and revisional order of 28th November, 1997 by learned senior counsel for W.P.(C) 5835/1999 Page 1 of 5 petitioners is on the ground that the ‘subject land’ had vested with the ‘Custodian’ in 1947 by operation of the East Punjab (Administration of Property) Act, 1947. It is submitted that by virtue of Notification of 13th September, 1948 under Section 2 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, the ‘subject land’ was proposed to be acquired. It is pointed out that vide Notification of 11th July, 1948 under Section 4 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, possession of the subject land was sought to be taken. It is further pointed out that Notice under Section 4 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Annexure-D) was duly served upon the ‘Custodian’.
3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the compensation has been paid to the ‘Custodian’. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to an order of 21st June, 1960 (Annexure-F). Attention of this Court is also drawn to ‘Offer’ No.1019A (Annexure-G) to point out that the compensation payable to the non-evacuees and the ‘Custodian’ was determined and was to be paid to the ‘land owners’ if they withdrew their cases from the Arbitrator. It is submitted that after settlement with Mohd. Iliyas and Mohd. Iqbal, both S/o Noor Mohammad, Chand Bibi wife of late Noor Mohammad had made a complaint that entire compensation has not been paid and compensation for the four trees and a Well was also required to be paid. It is pointed that, there is copy of receipt, which indicates that payment of `368/- was made to Smt. Chand Bibi wife of Noor Mohammad, who had accepted it. Learned senior counsel further submitted that respondents No.1 to 5 are the subsequent purchasers, who have no locus as the compensation already stands paid W.P.(C) 5835/1999 Page 2 of 5 to the aforesaid ‘land owners’. Thus, it is submitted that the compensation for the acquired land already stands paid and the impugned orders do not take note of the aforesaid factual position and so, orders impugned deserve to be set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that the findings returned by the courts below are perverse as publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient Notice to all concerned.
4. On the contrary, learned senior counsel for respondents supports the impugned orders and submits that Notice to the ‘Custodian’ is not a Notice to the actual ‘land owners’ and so, proposed acquisition of the ‘subject land’ is invalid as contesting respondents are still in actual physical possession of ‘subject land’. To submit so, reliance is placed upon decision of this Court in Abdul Wahid (deceased by L.R.) and others v. Union of India and Others, AIR1982Del.
290. Attention of this Court is drawn to copies of documents at pages 98-A and 99-A of the paper-book to point out that the surety bond to receive compensation was furnished in April, 1964 and that there is no document on record to show that any compensation was actually received by the ‘land owners’. It is clarified by learned senior counsel for respondents that initial purchasers of ‘subject land’ were respondents-Lekh Raj and Puran Lal, who had subsequently sold the ‘subject land’ to respondents No.1 to 5. Lastly, it is vehemently submitted that respondents No.1 to 5 are in actual physical possession of the ‘subject land’ in the capacity of being successor-in-interest of respondents No.8 & 9, who are recorded owners of the ‘subject land’ and so, this petitioner deserves dismissal.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders, the record produced and the decision cited, I find that this is the third round of W.P.(C) 5835/1999 Page 3 of 5 litigation. Despite two consecutive remands, petitioners have not been able to conclusively prove that the ‘subject land’ was acquired and consequentially, compensation was paid to the ‘land owners’. In all fairness to learned senior counsel for petitioners, the ‘Offer’ No.1019A (Annexure-G) purports to acquire the ‘subject land’ at a pre-determined rate. The ‘Offer’ made is summarized in Annexure-G. However, in the ‘Offer’ (Annexure-G) itself, it is recorded that new rates will be paid only when the ‘land owners’ are prepared to compromise the cases fully and finally and withdraw their cases from the Arbitrator. Attention of this Court has not been drawn to any document to show that the ‘land owners’ had withdrawn their cases from the Arbitrator. Nevertheless, during the course of hearing, reference was made to consolidated voucher of 24th November, 1962, which does indicate that certain amount of compensation was to be paid to land owners-Mohd. Iliyas and Mohd. Iqbal, both S/o Noor Mohammad. However, there is no reference to the main land owner-Chand Bibi wife of late Noor Mohammad. It is true that copy of the surety bond furnished by the land owners is on record, but the conclusive proof of its acceptance by the authorities concerned is not available on record.
6. While interpreting Section 4 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, this Court in Abdul Wahid (supra) has declared that Notice has to be sent to ‘land owners’ and not to the ‘Custodian’. In the instant case, Notice had been sent to ‘Custodian’ and not to the ‘land owners’.
7. In view of afore-referred lacuna pointed out, I find that the impugned orders cannot be faulted with. The concurrent finding of the W.P.(C) 5835/1999 Page 4 of 5 authorities below is that the ‘subject land’ did not vest with the Government. Finding no perversity in the impugned orders, this petition is accordingly dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. DECEMBER19 2018 s (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE W.P.(C) 5835/1999 Page 5 of 5