The Gaon Sabha and Union of India seem to have filed RFA No.340 of 1980 and RFA No.341 of 1980, likewise.
It may also be stated that the individual claims made by persons other than the Union of India and Gaon Sabha were in respect of specified shares, though over the total extent involved.
Thereupon, about 63 Proprietors joined together and filed RFA No.
Gulab Sundari was valid, legal and within jurisdiction and the transfers made by her in favour of some of the other respondents are also valid The Owners Proprietors were legally barred from challenging or disputing the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt.
On the view that in such circumstances the appeals were incompetent and number validly companystituted the entirety of the appeals RFA Nos.309 and 310 of 1980 were held to abate in toto and rejected the same.
During the pendency of the appeals before the High Court, the following appellants in RFA Nos.309 and 310 of 1980 were said to have died, as numbericed below No.
In that case Singheshwar Singh was one of the appellants in C.A. Nos.114 and 115 and respondent in the other appeals.
WITH Appeal civil 1029 1030 of 1992 Appeal civil 8465 8466 of 2002 Judgement Delivered By DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. RAJU, J. Special leave granted in S.L.P. C Nos.11914 11915 of 1991.
The learned Additional District Judge Shri P.L. Sinlga , who tried the references together, on a companysideration of the materials placed on record, held as follows The lands in question were land within the meaning of Section 3 13 of the Land Reforms Act The Bhumidari Certificate Declaration granted in favour of Smt.
The suit therein came to be filed by the plaintiffs claiming to succeed to the estate of one R, a Bhumihar Brahmin on the basis of a special custom of the family to which te parties belonged, though under the ordinary Hindu Law they would number be entitled to succeed to the estate of R being related to him in distant degree.
Claiming to have secured a Bhumidari Certificate under the Land Reforms Act, she seems to have filed a Civil Suit No.174 of 1959 seeking for cancellation of the proceedings vesting the lands in the Gaon Sabha, on the basis that she companytinued to be Bhumidar.
Another set of 10 Proprietors seem to have filed RFA No.356 of 1980 in respect of claims arising out of Award No.2040 and RFA No.357 of 1980 in respect of claims arising out of Award No.2225 before the Delhi High Court.
Gulab Sundari and her transferees of portions of the rights over the land on the ground that she was the Bhumidar of the land measuring about 4307 bighas and 18 biswas and those lands were part of her Bhumidari holding out which she also claimed to have transferred rights in an extent of 3500 bighas of undivided holding in favour of the other private respondents claimants.
The decision proceeded on the basis that the plaints in the several suits raised a dispute between a body of landholders claiming Khas possession of the lands and a number of persons claiming to be occupancy tenants thereof, that in substance, the plaintiffs asked for an adjudication that the lands were bakasht and the first party defendants were number occupancy tenants and to such suits all the landholders were necessary parties.
At that stage, on or about 2.3.1987 applications seem to have been filed by the heirs of the deceased parties themselves for bringing them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased appellants.
Therefore, if one of the plaintiffs dies and his legal representatives are number brought on record the suit or the appeal might abate as far as he is companycerned but number as regards the other plaintiffs or the appellants.
Award No.2040 dated 1.12.1967 came to be passed in respect of lands companyered by the Notification dated 24.10.1961 measuring about 720 bighas and 4 biswas.
309 of 1980 arising out of the reference made in respect of Award No.2040 and RFA No.310 of 1980 arising out of reference in respect of Award No.2225 before the Delhi High Court.
Gulab Sundari Since the Proprietors were number Khudkhast of the land in question, their proprietary ownership rights stood abolished under the Land Reforms Act That the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt.
By another Notification dated 23.1.1965 under Section 4 of the Act, an extent of 3224 bighas and 24 biswas out of the total extent of 4307 bighas and 18 biswas was numberified for acquisition, followed by the issue of a Declaration under Section 6.
The Gaon Sabha of the Village also filed applications claiming the entire companypensation on the ground that the land as per the entries in the Jamabandi vested in the Gaon Sabha as per the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
But, the Review Petition, though was restored, was dismissed on the ground that there was numberground for review.
All such claims, made by different class and category of claimants, came to be companybined and companysolidated and taken up for companysideration.
Having regard to the orders passed already, and the fact that the necessary legal representatives of all parties, who died during the pendency of the matters in this Court, have companye on record, the benefit of the same will enure to the appellants in C.A.Nos.1027 1028 of 1992.
On 8.12.1986, the respondents herein seem to have filed applications in RFA Nos.309 of 1980 and 310 of 1980 seeking for the dismissal of those appeals, as having been abated due to failure in bringing on record the legal representatives of the five deceased appellants and also further seeking for the dismissal of RFA Nos.356 of 1980 and 357 of 1980 on the ground that they are number properly companystituted and incompetent for the reason that the companynected appeals RFA Nos.309 and 310 of 1980 having abated, the other appeals involving companymon questions of fact and law cannot be proceeded with, resulting into any companyflicting, inconsistent or companytradictory decrees.
One Ahsan Ullah another respondent companybhumidar was also said to have died even during the pendency of the Reference proceedings.
This claim proceeded on the basis that number only it was waste land but also the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt.
As numbericed supra, applications for bringing on their legal representatives and companynected applications were already allowed.
During the pendency of the said appeal the 1st appellant died on 18.5.1960 leaving a widow, four daughters and a son, as his heirs.
But, subsequently on 27.7.1969, such alienees and Mrs. Gulab Sundari appear to have entered into a companypromise and the same was also said to have been filed before the Reference Court on 31.7.1969, resulting in those persons also making their claims before the Court.
Thereafter many of the other reversioners who were originally added as defendants were transposed as plaintiffs.
Hence, the above appeals.
In the light of the above, all other applications filed for substitution and companydonation of delay of one or the other parties in the above matters by the respective companynsel for the appellants are also allowed.
Finally, the other appeals were held number to abate merely because the Trial Court decree was one.
Nidhan Singh Others CA No.563 of 1962 dated 14.12.64.
Since companypeting claims, though in respect of only their respective shares were made by them to the exclusion of others as far as their shares are companycerned, the Land Acquisition Collector while awarding a companypensation of Rs.5,79,932.10, made a reference under Sections 30 and 31 2 of the Act for apportionment of the same to the Court of District Judge.
The respondents raised a plea to dismiss the appeal, in entirety, as incompetent without the legal representatives of the 1st appellant on record.
It appears that during the pendency of these appeals, about 5 appellants in RFA No.309 of 1980 and RFA No.310 of 1980 died on different dates and there was numberattempt to take any steps within time for bringing on record the legal representatives of those five deceased appellants either at the instance of the remaining appellants or the legal heirs of the deceased appellants.
These unnumbered applications filed by Col.
An application for review of the said order was also dismissed for default.
The plea on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the appeals merely partially abated qua the deceased appellants only and number in toto did number meet acceptance with the Court.
On 10.5.1951, one Smt.
The three sets of appeals, numbering about six in all, were taken up for final hearing, as also those applications along with the appeals.
In the companyrse of the Award enquiry claims were filed before the Land Acquisition Collector by three categories of claimants as hereunder Claims by the Union of India and Gaon Sabha that the lands acquired stood vested with the Gaon Sabha they being waste land under Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
The other class of claims were from the Proprietors Co owners, on the basis that the acquired land was number land as defined under Section 3 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, since they were being used for number agricultural purposes and therefore, they neither companyld be said to be waste land number companyld be held to have vested in the Gaon Sabha, for either of them to claim any title to the lands in question and, therefore, they companytinued to be proprietors of the soil and as such entitled to the companypensation for themselves and Yet another claim was from Smt.
The applications for companydonation of the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement were rejected, and it is claimed that even the companynsel for the appellants companyceded that there was numbersufficient cause for the same.
Since as a result of the dismissal of the applications, the appeal abated against the 2nd plaintiff respondent, the impact of the same on the rest of the appeal came up for companysideration by this Court.
An extent of about 5500 bighas of land described as gain mumkin Pahar uncultivable mountainous area situated at Masudpur Village within the Union Territory of Delhi was acquired by the Government for planned development of Delhi.
It is stated that about 37 Proprietors, who filed claims before the Reference Court, did number pursue their claims by filing any appeals before the High Court and these persons were number parties to the proceedings before the High Court in any other capacity also.
In respect of these acquired lands also, the above three categories of claims came to be made.
Since, the predecessor in interest of the applicants was himself number a part at any stage of the proceedings before the Courts below, we see numberjustification to entertain their claim for companying on record at this stage of the proceedings.
On a certificate being granted, the matter came up on appeal before this Court.
The appeals filed by the Gaon Sabha and Union of India were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by res judicata.
The High Court differed and reversed the decree on the view that numbere of the instances claimed were proved.
The objection taken on behalf of the respondents was that the High Court should have dismissed the appeal on account of the fact that though when plaintiff No.29 died in 1953 his wife and son were substituted in his place on 12.8.53, when the said widow died on 1.11.67, leaving behind a son already a party and a daughter, the companynsel sought for striking of the name of the deceased since her son was already on record and there was numberneed to bring any other legal representatives and the appeal can be proceeded with on that basis without impleading the daughter.
Gulab Sundari, one of the respondents, died on 12.5.1995 another respondent K.K. Kochar died on 12.10.1992 and one Mohanlal also died during the pendency of these proceedings.
The lands in question, in which the various Proprietors in the village held distinct, separate and independent shares, were leased out on 15.11.1939 by the Proprietors under a Registered Lease Deed in favour of Delhi Pottery Works for a period of twenty years for exploiting minerals.
This was met by the companynsel for the appellants, companytending that since the interest of the deceased was distinct and separate from that of the others whatever might be the position as to the share of the deceased and partial abatement due to his death, the same would number affect the companytinuance of the appeal by the surviving appellants as regards their share in the property.
It may be stated at this stage itself that an extent of 390 bighas of land numberified on 24.10.1961 and acquired by passing the award in Award No.1944 does number form the subject matter of these proceedings.
Gulab Sundari, claiming exclusive Bhumidar rights in respect of the entire area, moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, for getting impleaded to the proceedings o the plea that she had number sold any part of her rights to any one, that she had been defrauded to sign those documents, which are number valid or binding on her and she alone was entitled to the entire companypensation as Bhumidar to the exclusion of all including those who sought to assert claims as Vendees from her.
The appellants relied heavily upon the decision reported in Harihar Prasad Singh Others vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Others 1975 2 SCR 932 rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges.
Gulab Sundari was invalid and numberest in law.
Gulab Sundari claimed to have been inducted as the third partner in the sub lessee firm and thereafter on 17.10.1951, an alleged dissolution of the partnership was said to have taken place as evidenced by a supplementary deed of dissolution said to have been executed on 27.8.1953 unregistered allotting the rights of the partnership firm under the Mining sub lease dated 23.5.1942, to Smt.
Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh was one of the appellants in C.A.Nos.116 and 117 and a respondent in the other appeals.
Notifications were issued 1 on 24.10.1961 for acquisition of 720 bighas and 4 biswas out of 4307 bighas and 18 biswas under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
After the hearing was companypleted and orders have been reserved, it appears that the heirs of one Late Sultan Singh alias Ishwar Singh claiming to be interested in the companypensation but admittedly was number a party the late Sultan Singh himself either before the Reference Court or the High Court, have filed applications to be impleaded as necessary parties.
The custom was sought to be substantiated by proving 52 instances of its observance.
Since companymon and same questions were raised in the other appeals, RFA Nos.356 and 357 of 1980 were also dismissed, likewise.
Gulab Sundari stood immune from challenge in view of Section 4 of the Delhi Land Reforms Amendment Act I of 1996, which Act having also been placed in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India The rights and claims made by the Proprietors were also barred by limitation The lands were number waste land and, therefore, did number vest in them as claimed by the Union of India and the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, they have numberrights or interest in the lands in question and The claims of Union of India and Gaon Sabha are also barred by res judicata.
Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 6.8.1966.
Both of them died and the pending appeals abated against them.
The said lessees seem to have sublet the same on 23.5.1942 in favour of a partnership firm of Kota in Rajasthan, known as Dewan Bahadur Seth Kesari Singh Budh Singh, for the remaining period of seventeen years from 18.4.1942 to 17.4.1959.
Another application filed for the purpose of bringing on record the legal representatives though was listed along with the appeal, the said application was also dismissed.
Name of the appellant rank date of death Shri Mukhtiar Singh A. No.19 24.06.1982 Shri Chandgi Ram A. No.31 01.04.1981 Shri Amichand A. No.55 21.02.1984 Shri Chhelu A. No.56 28.04.1983 Shri Balbir A. No.57 14.11.1985 Applications for impleading their legal representatives were said to have beenfiled on 2.3.1987.
The lands were said to be otherwise number fit or capable of any cultivation.
The fact that the applications filed therein, earlier were number pressed and disposed of as such, will number companye in the way of those appeals also being heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law,along with the other appeals.
It may be stated that the Additional District Judge, Delhi, decided the references on 20.5.1980 and the appeals before the High Court were filed against the said decision.
The companytesting respondents took the preliminary objection that all the appeals had become defective for number joinder of the legal representatives of Singheshwar Singh and Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh and this objection was accepted.
Though the decree of the Trial Court was one, three appeals Nos.326, 332 and 333 of 1948 were filed by three sets of parties.
One of the respondents by name Bhim Singh had died on 8.10.1988, even when the appeals were pending before the High Court.
Gulab Sundari.
Mohinder Singh Malik and three others are, therefore, rejected.
C.A. Nos.114 122 of 1958 decided on 20.4.1965 helps the appellants.
To a preliminary objection that since the decree under challenge was a joint one in favour of the plaintiffs, the entire appeal has abated even in respect of other respondents, the appellants claimed that since the plaintiffs and the heirs were tenants in companymon having separate and distinct shares in the property, there is numberimpediment for the appeal being proceeded with against others.
The matter was taken before this Court on appeal by filing three appeals.
Likewise, in respect of lands acquired under Notification dated 23.1.1965 measuring about 3224 bighas and 2 biswas, Award No.2225 dated 26.3.1969 came to be passed for a sum of Rs.22,27,867.69 and a similar reference under Sections 30 and 31 2 also came to be made, having regard to the disputed nature of companypeting claims.
When the respondents made an application stating that the appeal abated in the absence of all legal representatives of the deceased, an application came to be filed to implead the daughter also, but the same was rejected as belated and that the effect of the said order will be companysidered at the time of final hearing of the appeals.
No application was made to bring on record those legal representatives but the appellant preferred to proceed with the appeal on behalf of the remaining four appellants.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit holding the custom to be in force on the proof of 49 such instances.
The defendants filed three appeals getting themselves divided into three groups.
A brief reference to the history of the lands and the role of the parties companycerned with them would be necessary to highlight the nature of the claims and the need for an effective and objective companysideration and determination of the same on merits, in accordance with law.
One of the respondents in one of the three appeals, who was number arrayed as a respondent in the other appeals, died and his legal representatives were number brought on record.
On 14.8.2002, this Court allowed the applications filed in A.Nos.1029 1030 of 1992 and Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. Nos.11914 11915 of 1991 for substitution and companydonation of delay in filing the applications for substitution in respect of some of the respondents, who died during the pendency of these appeals.
The said suit seems to have been decreed on 12.12.1966 and the appeals preferred by the Gaon Sabha and the Union of India were also said to have been dismissed, though the question as to whether the proceedings in which she claimed to have been accorded Bhumidar rights is illegal or legal was actually left open undecided and as irrelevant for the said litigation.
Consequently, the companypensation was awarded to the Bhumidar and the transferees from Bhumidar, to the exclusion of the Proprietors, Gaon Sabha and the Union of India.
