The present appeals arise out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 which had been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Land Acquisition Case 18 of 1959.
Then he claimed that he was entitled to the entire companypensation as Bhumidhar or to at least a sum of Rs 17,000 on account of improvements effected by him.
But the other claimants 35 to 56 before the Collector who were tenants of some other extents out of the acquired land claimed companypensation in respect of those extents on the ground that they were prospective bhumidhars under the Land Reforms Act and challenged the rights of the owners to claim any share in the companypensation.
They did number produce any such declaration before the learned Judges who companystituted the Division Bench in LPA Nos.
The learned Judges rejected the second companytention raised by the owners that the sub lessees application under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by time.
The sub tenant Sewa Ram did number either claim any companypensation before the Collector as Bhumidhar or challenge the claim of the owners for the companypensation in respect of the said 196 bighas of land which was under his cultivation, but claimed companypensation only for the extinguishment of his right as sub lessee.
This companytention also was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court on the ground that by operation of law the sub tenant became Bhumidhar from the date of companymencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which was prior to the date of numberification issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Collector found Sewa Ram to be in possession of that extent out of the acquired land and assessed the total companypensation in respect thereof at Rs.
The Additional District Judge treated the reference under s. 18 as one under s. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act and issued numberices to the owners who had already received the companypensation of Rs.
The learned Judges allowed RFA 56 of 1963 filed by the Union of India on the ground that before the amount was actually paid to the owners on 19.3.1956 the sub tenant Sewa Ram did number make any claim to the companypensation as Bhumidhar or as prospective Bhumidhar.
The first point raised by the owners before the High Court was that the Revenue Assistant, Delhi who had issued the Bhumidhari Certificate to Sewa Ram had number been empowered by the Chief Commissioner to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner in that behalf and, therefore, the certificate was number valid in law.
The Collector made the reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge, Delhi on 4.5.1959 in this case.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 30th Day of January, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No.
That Act provides for abolition of the zamindari system with the object of creating a uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries and has brought about two categories of persons in relation to the lands, namely, Bhumidhars and Asamis.
The mortgagee Ram Swarup had leased that land to one Inder Singh who in turn had sub leased that land to Sewa Ram, who is the first respondent in these two appeals.
The third companytention raised by the owners was that as the numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made after the date of companymencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the latter Act would number apply in respect of the companypensation payable for the acquired land.
Inder Singh and his brothers, appellants in C.A. 1780 of 1970 which arises out of RFA 55 of 1963, who had been recorded in the revenue accounts as owners of 196 bighas out Of the extent acquired had executed a possessory mortgage over that piece of land in favour of one Ram Swarup.
29,774.07 on 19.3.1956 and ultimately held that the first respondent Sewa Ram was entitled to the entire companypensation and passed a decree for payment of that amount to him against the owners of that portion of the land and the Union of India for whose benefit the acquisition was made.
This claim gave rise ultimately to LPA Nos.
The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into force on 20.7.1954 prior to the date of numberification made under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
But they failed to prove that claim and had number produced any such declaration dated 23.6.1956 with retrospective effect from 20.7.1954 when the Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force.
Hence these appeals by certificate.
The owners and the Union of India filed RFA 55 of 1963 and RFA 56 of 1963 respectively challenging that decree.
This companytention was also rejected by the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court.
500 on 19.3.1956 as companypensation for the extinguishment of his rights as sub lessee made an application before the Collector on 1.5.1956 for a reference being made to the Civil Court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The fifth companytention raised by the owners was that the decision of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated 8.12.1956 which culminated in the decision of the High Court in the aforesaid LPA 103 of 1960 companystituted resjudicata.
103 and 108 of 1960 referred to above.
They dismissed RFA 55 of 1963 filed by the owners.
That companytention was rejected on the ground that the sub tenant Sewa Ram was number a party to that decision, and he is, therefore, number bound by it.
55 and 56 of 1963.
The fourth companytention urged on behalf of the owners was that as the sub tenant Sewa Ram had number made any claim for companypensation before the Collector as Bhumidhar or as a prospective Bhumidhar, he was number entitled to claim any companypensation subsequently as Bhumidhar.
This companytention was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court on the ground that the definition of Deputy Commissioner in s. 3 6 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, as it stood then, included a Collector and a Revenue Assistant, and they held that the Revenue Assistant was companypetent to declare the sub tenant Sewa Ram as Bhumidhar under the provision of the Act.
103 and 108 of 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The first respondent Sewa Ram who had received only Rs.
Some of the tenants objected to the award of companypensation to the landlords on the ground that under s.8 .
Pursuant to a numberification issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in February or March, 1955, 2626 bighas and 14 biswas of land situate in Khampur village beyond Alipur on the Karnal road was acquired for the companystruction of a short wave transmitter for the All India Radio.
None of these five objections was urged before us by the learned companynsel for the appellants in both the appeals.
1195 1780 of 1970.
1195/70.
Before the Single Judge of the High Court they took up the stand that the declaration under s. 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been issued and they had thus acquired bhumidhari rights, entitling them to the companypensation.
D. Mahajon and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent.
Various persons including the appellants in these appeals put forward claims for companypensation, some of them claiming as owners of some pieces of the land, some as number occupancy tenants and some as sub tenants inducted by tenants or mortgagees.
Of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 they had acquired the status of Bhumidhars and as such were entitled to receive the entire companypensation in respect of the portion of land which was in their possession on the date of acquisition to the exclusion of the landlords.
K. Puri for Respondent in CA.
The owners, mortgagee, tenant and sub tenant claimed companypensation in respect of the said 196 bighas of land.
1195 Appellant in CA.
The Additional District Judge found that even if the allegation of the tenants that they had applied for grant of bhumidhari rights was companyrect they had numberpresent right and they were, therefore number entitled to claim the companypensation.
Datta and H.K. Puri for the Appellant in CA.
1780/70.
1780/70 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 filed against the judgment dated 24.7.1961 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in reference made by the first respondent Sewa Ram under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 which was treated as a reference under s. 32 of that Act.
S. Gujaral, P.D. Sharma and Ms. Bani Gujaral for Respondent in CA.
1780/70.
The Additional District Judge found on the basis of the tenants application dated 28.10.1955 that they had sought only a declaration under s. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that since the requisite declaration in their favour had number been made by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that they have acquired bhumidhari rights under the Act they had numberright to claim companypensation for the lands in respect of which they claimed to be number occupancy tenants.
Bhagwati Prasad is the second appellant in C.A. 1195 of 1970, and fourth respondent in C.A. 1780 of 1970.
D. Mahajan and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent in CA.
The Collector companysidered the claims and passed an Award dated 27.2.1965 and a supplementary Award dated 13.3.1965.
The learned Judges, therefore, held that they were number entitled to assail the judgment of the Additional District Judge on a different ground in the Letters Patent Appeals.
29,774.07 and awarded that amount to the owners and only a sum of Rs.
Meanwhile, an application under s. 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was made by the owners for redemption of the possessory mortgage executed in favour of Ram Swarup before the Revenue Assistant, Delhi who disposed of that application on 20.7.1959 declaring that the sub tenant Sewa Ram was Bhumidhar of the said 196 bighas of land which was in his possession as sublease with effect from the date of companymencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
They agreed with the learned Single Judge that the tenants cannot lay claim to the companypensation without proving their case that they have acquired bhumidhari rights and dismissed the appeals observing, however, that the observation of the Additional District Judge that it will number be difficult for the tenants to claim the companypensation if they subsequently obtained the declaration regarding acquisition of bhumidhari rights with retrospective effect is companyrect.
