LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHER SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .. ~ v. SHER SINGH AND ORS. FEBRUARY 7, 1997 B (K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : ..... -~ S.4( 1 )-Acquisition of "gair mumkin pahar'L..Compensation-Dispute c regarding title to the land---Gaon Sabha claiming compensation on the ground that land stood vested to Gaon Sabha-Respondents claiming them- selves as bhumidhars thereof-Held, land not being a Khudkhast land, respondents are not bhumidhars thereof-Land stood vested in Gaon Sabha. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: D Ss.3(11), 3(13), 5, 7 and 154-''Land''-''gair mumkin pahqr'"----Held, is \.. not a land cultivated by the proprietor and so it is not . a Khudkhast land--Respondents are not bhumidhars thereof since they did not hold the land as proprietor, and, the ref ore, shall not have proprietary right in "gair mumkin pahar"-i.and shall stand vested in Gaon Sabha. E Hatti v. Sunder Singh, [1971] 2 SCR 163, relied on. Res judicata: Held, dismissal of special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, without speaking order does not constitute res judicata-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. _). F " CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 167 of 1986. G Wasim Qadri for C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. M.C. Dhingra, Y.D. Nagar, L.C. Chechi and K. S. Rana for the .,.,.... Respondents. H The following Order of the Court was delivered: 1048 ~ \ U.0.1. v. SHER SINGH 1049 This appeal, by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division A -k Bench of the High Court of Delhi, made on May 30, 1991 in R.F.A. No . .167/86. ,.. The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 was published acquiring certain lands for public purpose. Therein rival claims came to be made by Gaon Sabha, B Tekhand and the respondents claiming title to the compensation. Since the - Land Acquisition Officer/Collector was unable to decide the title to receive y the compensation on reference under Section 30 of the Act, the District Court by award and decree dated February 22, 1986 held that the land in c question stood vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 7 read with Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (for short; the 'Act'). Therefore, it is •' entitled to the compensation of the land acquired by'the Union of India. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondents filed the above appeal. The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that "Gair Mumkin Pahar" is a cultivable land and, therefore, by operation of explanation to Section 7, it D .~ stands excluded from the vesting in the Gaon Sabha. Resultantly, the respondents being the owners of the property are entitled to the compen- sation. Thus, this appeal by special leave. Initially, Shri M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel for some of the respon- E> dents, has brought to our notice that since this Court had dismissed similar special leave petitions, this appeal does not merit consideration. We find no force in the contention. This Court, by then, had already granted leave in this appeal, but, unfortunately, that was not brought to the notice of the ; respective Benches including the one presided over ·by one of us (K. J Ramaswamy, J.), when the matters had come up. A~ a consequence, F without any speaking order son'le special leave petitions came to be dis- missed. In view of the settled legal position by a catena of decisions of this Court that the dismissal of special leave petition without speaking order does not constitute res judicata, the question of law is at large to be gone ' into. Accordingly, we reject the objection and we have heard the counsel G on both sides on merits. Shri Wasim A Qadri, learned counsel for Union of India and Gaon Sabha, in a pains taking investigation and neat presentation, has brought to our notice the relevant provisions of the Act and the decision of this Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, [1971] 2 SCR 163 and contended that the H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R. A object of the Act and the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 was to extin- guish the pre-existing right, title and interest held by bhumidhar, sirdar, tenant, proprietor etc. and conferment of new rights in them. It is also envisaged that all other lands shall stand vested in the Gaon Sabha by operation of Section 154 of the Act re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.