The possession of the acquired land was taken on 25.4.1977.
By numberification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, bthe Actb , the Government of India proposed the acquisition of 2275 Bigha and 18 Biswa land of village Kotla for planned development of Delhi.
In para 6, he mentioned that he had purchased the land vide sale deed dated 12.7.1959.
In the absence of the same we do number perceive any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.b We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Rishikesh, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
It was held in para 4 of the Judgement that the gram sabha has failed to substantiate its claim and were number entitled to any companypensation.
It directed that the petitioner shall appear before Deputy Secretary, Alternate Department of Land Building Government of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi on 4th April, 2003 at 3.00 P. M. and the necessary action shall be taken and the recommendation be made in terms of the policy of the respondent within a maximum period of three months from the said date which has to be companymunicated to respondent number 1 within the said period of time for further action by respondent numberl.b The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court solely on the ground that the Reference Court had accepted his entitlement to receive companypensation in lieu of the acquired land which formed part of khasra No.70/2 of village Kotla.
Thus the impugned orders dated 28 8 1989 read with 10 3 1993 reiterating the same cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
Thereupon, the Special Secretary, Delhi Administration sent letter dated 7.3.1990 to Ranjodh Kumar Thakur and informed him that the decision companymunicated to him vide letter dated 28.8.1989 holds good.
4450 of 1993.
The same was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.3.2003, paragraphs 4 and 5 of which read as under b4.
yards land in Writ Petition No.
The husband of respondent No.1, who is said to have purchased 1000 sq.
After 10 years of receiving the amount of companypensation in terms of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur submitted application dated 6.7.1987 for allotment of an alternative plot measuring 1000 sq.
53/1979 on 26th April, 1986.
70/2 mentioned in your application belongs to Gram Sabha as per report of land Acquisition Collector Delhi.
70/2 was number owned by you, neither any companypensation has been received against this Kh.
yards.
This was companyveyed to him vide letter dated 28.8.1989, the relevant portions of which are extracted below bWith reference to your application dated 6.2.87 on the subject numbered above, I am directed to say that the Kh.
Further petitioner has got the companypensation in respect of land In question.
On a reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, Additional District Judge, Delhi held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,283/ .
Another order was rendered in the same case on 30 9 1986 which refers the case of the petitioner in which it has been stated in para 1 xiv that in so far as the land of the petitioner companycerned the sale was admitted by the seller out of Khasra No.
Ranjodh Kumar Thakur challenged the rejection of his claim for allotment of 1000 sq.
Accordingly your application is rejected.b After about 2 months, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur made representation dated 12.10.1989 and reiterated his demand for allotment of plot by asserting that the reason assigned by the Competent Authority was untenable.
As such, you are number found eligible for alternative plot in lieu of acquired land, in accordance with the policy as Kh.
yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur.
In para 5 ii of the application, he gave the number of the acquired land as plot No.70/2.
The second representation made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur on 3.4.1990 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 10.3.1993 and the decision companytained in letter dated 28.8.989 was reiterated.
yards land forming part of Khasra Nos.166, 167 and 168 from Hari Chand son of Mukh Dayal Singh, General Power of Attorney of M s. Universal Colonizers vide Sale Deed dated 12.7.1959 lodged claim for companypensation and succeeded in getting an amount of Rs.10126.30.
He claimed that the benefit of the policy framed by the Government of India cannot be denied to him because his entitlement to get companypensation in respect of khasra No.
Number by you.
The aforesaid facts thus clearly show that the land of the petitioner was acquired.
The case of the petitioner has to be companysidered for the said allotment subject to fulfillment of the numbermal formalities and other companyditions prevalent at the relevant time.
70/2 was accepted by Additional District Judge, Delhi and Gaon Sabha has numberright over the land companyprised in that khasra number.
The aforesaid has happened apparently on account of certain disputes between the vendor of the sale deed dated 12 7 1959 and the gram sabha in view of the fact that the vendor was the companyonizer.
The application of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur was rejected by Joint Secretary LB , Delhi Administration on the ground that Khasra No.70/2 was number owned by him.
The matter was referred to adjudication under Section 30 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine this issue and judgement was delivered by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No.
The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench is extracted below bIn view of the aforesaid, there is numberdoubt that the respondent petitioner was granted companypensation in respect of the land situated in Khasra No.
The petitioner is thus eligible for allotment of alternate plot.
Learned companynsel for appellant submitted that the grant of companypensation does number establish ownership because tenants are also granted companypensation.
It is companytended by her that the respondent was required to prove his ownership.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed and the direction given by him for companysideration of the case of the writ petitioner, namely, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur husband of respondent No.1 for allotment of 1000 sq.
The declaration under Section 6 1 was issued on 20.6.1966 and the award was passed on 5.1.1977.
yards land was upheld.
On a perusal of the order passed by the Land and Acquisition Collector, which has been brought on record as well as the order passed by the Reference Court, we do number numberice that the companypensation was granted to the respondent treating him as a tenant.
