Sher Singh and Ors.
District Judge, Nathi and others preferred RFA No.
District Judge dated 22.2.1986 in LAC No.
Alternatively the plaintiffs claimed that they were in cultivatory possession of the land and accordingly became Bhumidhar thereof further as the land was Gair Mumkin Pahar it companyld number vest in the Gaon Sabha.
Accordingly it was held that the Gaon Sabha was entitled to entire amount of companypensation and the private respondents were number entitled to get anything and their claim was rejected.
further submitted that there had been a prior litigation regarding title of the land in dispute in the civil companyrt wherein a decree had been passed in their favour.
The learned Additional District Judge decided all the seven references by companymon judgment and order dated 22.2.1986 wherein he held that it was the Gaon Sabha which was entitled to receive the companypensation amount and number the private respondents.
2004 3 SCR 354 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. MATHUR, J. Civil Appeal No.3105 of 1997 has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and another against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1991 of Delhi High Court in RFA No.
which came to be decided in RSA number 73 of 1972 on 22.05.1980 and also upon an earlier decision taken by the same Branch in RFA number332 of 1968 Union of India and Anr.
It is this judgment and decree which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal which has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and Union of India.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award decree of the Addl.
The respondents herein private parties pleaded that as the land was Gair Mumkin Pahar it companyld number vest in the Gaon Sabha and they were owners proprietors of the same.
The land in dispute is situate in village Tekhand and in Khasra girdwari it was recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar.
The High Court in this case basically relied upon the civil suit filed by Nathan and Ors.
The Addl.
3105 of 1997 which has been preferred by Gaon Sabha and Union of India against Nathi and 38 others.
The companytroversy involved in both the appeals is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a companymon order.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were proprietors in the possession of land which was shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar and banjar qadim in khasra girdwari in the year 1953 54.
The Collector made an award but a dispute arose regarding the right to receive companypensation between the Gaon Sabha and the private respondents.
and held that the order of vesting of the disputed land in Gaon Sabha was number companyrect and the private respondents were the owners of the land.
257 of 1984 Sher Singh and Ors.
1019 of 1972 wherein it was held that land recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar is waste land which would vest in the Gaon Sabha.
on their own behalf and on behalf of the companysharers of Thok Didhori filed a suit in the Court of senior Sub Judge, Delhi seeking a declaration that the vesting of the land in Khewat number 36/312 in the Gaon Sabha Tekhand was illegal and void and had numbereffect on the rights of the plaintiffs and other companysharers.
Even otherwise the judgment and order dated 30.5.1991 in RFA number 167 of 1986 is under challenge in CA No.
Civil Appeal No.
2183 of 1993 was initially allowed by this Court on 7.2.1997 but the order was recalled on 25.7.2003 on the ground that some of the respondents had died and their heirs had number been brought on record when the matter was heard and decided at the earlier stage.
allowed the appeal on 7.11.1991 by a short order and held that respondents were entitled to entire amount of companypensation and number the Gaon Sabha.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, the award decree of the Addl.
The case of Gaon Sabha was that the land being Gair Mumkin Pahar it had had vested in it under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act , that it was in possession over the land when the same was acquired and that the government took possession of the land from the Gaon Sabha.
The Deputy Commissioner had passed an order under section 7 2 of the Act vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha.
In view of the fact that the impugned judgment does number deal with the companytroversy raised and the High Court has allowed the appeal only on the basis of its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Sher Singh and Ors.
209 of 1986 before Delhi High Court.
The High Court, following its earlier judgment and decree dated 30.5.1991 in RFA number167 of 1986 given in the case of Sher Singh and Ors.
v. Mamleshwar Prasad and Ors.
Nathan and Ors.
167 of 1986.
We will mention the facts CA No.
Proceedings for acquisition of a large tract of land were initiated by issuing numberifications under Section 4 1 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Against the decision of the Addl.
The Gaon Sabha however relied upon a judgment dated 8.12.1982 of Delhi High Court Justice M.L. Jain in CWP No.
in RFA number 167 of 1986, it becomes necessary to look to the reasoning given for deciding the said matter.
2183 of 1993 has been preferred by Union of India and another against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1991 of Delhi High Court in RFA No.
preferred RFA number 167 of 1986 in the High Court.
District Judge chose to follow the later judgment delivered in the write petition and further held that in the civil suit ultimately the High Court in second appeal RSA number 73 of 1972 had remanded the matter for fresh companysideration by the Deputy Commissioner and as such there was numberfinal determination of the rights of the property.
Civil Appeal No.
The Gaon Sabha companytested the suit on various grounds and one of the important pleas taken was that the civil Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit in view of section 185 of the Act.
District Judge was set aside and the respondents were held to be entitled to the companypensation amount.
2183 of 1993 filed by Union of India.
Since the High Court has based its judgment mainly upon the earlier civil suit, it is necessary to refer to the same and take numbere of the decision finally rendered therein in the second appeal.
209 of 1986.
