Mr.Aman Mehrotra,Mr.Ansh Tewatia,Advocates. v. GOVT.OF NCT OFDELHIAND ORS.

1. A peculiar issue arises in this batch ofpetitions where the Petitioners have come forth for a declaration of lapse of land acquisition proceedings in respectto the land otherwise known as'shamlatde\

2. The case ofthe Petitioners is in respect oftotal land in Khasra No.132 (12-06),4023/733(27-19),4026/2785/734(00-10), AOlllll^Sll^A-(36-13) admeasuring 77 bighas 8 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi pertinent to which Award No.7/1997-98 dated 12"^ December 1997 was issued in which Award the names of the Petitioners figure among 216 claimants. According to the Petitioners, physical possession was not taken by the Land Acquisition Collector(LAC)ofthe entire land but only of 58 bighas 10 biswas by way of Kabza ATzrwcnyPossession Report dated 3L'January, L' February, and nd

2 February2002. The Petitioners claim that physical possession of land WP(C)Nos.4546/15,10884/15&8102/15 Page2of[5] admeasuring 18 bighas 12 biswa has not been taken by the Respondents and "the same continues to be with the Petitioners and the other co-owners till date".

3. An objection was taken by the respondent-DDA in its reply stating that the Petitioners had not placed on record any document showing them to be the owners of the land in question. Further, it is alleged that they had also failed to place on record any site-plan identifying their respective lands. Further,it was pointed out that even though they have claimed themselves to be "co-owners ofthe land in question along with other persons,their details are neither mentioned in the petition nor they have been made a party to the present petition".

4. When this Court was hearing these petitions on January 2018, after taking note ofthese facts, a direction was issued to all the Petitioners"to file affidavits to state as to whether they are competent to bind the other coowners and as to whether they have any interest adverse with respect to the co-owners".

5. Pursuant to said direction, affidavits have been filed by the Petitioners in which it is inter alia stated that the land in question "was undivided and jointly owned by the deponent and other co-owners and the deponent is having undivided interest over entire and every parcel ofthe land in question along with other petitioner/other co-owners and does not have any claim/adverse interest against the other co-owners or their shares". It was also claimed that the petition was filed "on the basis of doctrine of agency WP(C)Nds.4546/15,10884/15 &8102/15 Page3of[5] 2.[2] and it is to be assumed that the consent of the eo-owners has been taken to ensure the benefit ofthe land in question by seeking declaration with respect to the entire land in question".

6. These affidavits,therefore, do not advance the case ofthe Petitioners any further since they do not answer the specific query raised bythis Court.

7. The complication that arises, as can be perceived by this Court, is that although,originally,it was noted in the Award passed by the LAC way back on 12'^ December 1997 that there were as many 216 claimants in respect of the land in question,the number ofPetitioners/claimants before the Court in this batch ofpetitions,including those impleaded, would come to around 70. None ofthese claimants before the Court are able to reproduce any original record by way of any original entry in a Khasm Girdawari to show the extent oftheir right/interest/share in the lands in question.

8. At this stage, leamed counsel for the Petitioners draws our attention to some of the photocopies of Khasra Girdawaris which are placed on the record. These,however,are of1987 vintage and,as noticed are photocopies. Further,the Court has no assurance that the position as oftoday continues to be the same.In any event,from the side ofthe Respondents also, there is no assistance by production of the original record. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, leamed counsel appearing for the LAC, states that Naksha Murtazami is not available for production.

9. In these circumstances, it is unsafe for the Court to proceed on the basis that the Petitioners/claimants have established their clear right/interest/share WP(C)Nos.4546/15,10884/15 &8102/15 Page4of[5] in the land in question on the basis on documents produced.The Court is of the view that each of the Petitioners/claimants must demonstrate, without doubt,on the basis ofcredible original documentsforming part ofan official record that they have an undisputed right/share/interest in the land in question to enable them to succeed in their prayers for declaration of the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of that particular right/share/interestin such land.

10. Accordingly, while granting liberty to each ofthe Petitioners/claimants to pursue their individual claims in respect of their respective shares/interest/right in the land in question in separate proceedings in accordance with law and in the manner indicated hereinbefore, these petitions are disposed ofand the pending applications are also disposed of.

S.MURALIDHAR SANJEEV NARULA,J. NOVEMBER 20,2018 Pallavi