Shri Panchayati Akhara Naya Udaseen v. Union Of India & ORS
$~7 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 7/2016 SHRI PANCHAYATI AKHARA NAYA UDASEEN ..... Appellant Represented by:
Mr.Pradeep K.Bakshi, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Navet, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:
Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Advocate with Mr.Manudev Sharma, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 06.01.2016 CM No.351/2016 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
1.
Case pleaded by the appellant in the writ petition was that on the land comprised in Khasra No.3146/923 and 3075/922 situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur a gurudwara/temple existed since last 57 years. Before partition in the year 1947 one Sh.Kishan Singh, the owner of the land, gave it to one Lahori Mal Sadhu who was an Udaseen Sadhu. Under a will executed by Lahori Mal Sadhu, the appellant was bequeathed
the land in question.
It was pleaded further that the land could not be acquired. It was pleaded that DDA had no right to take possession of the land.
2.
In the counter affidavit filed by DDA it was pleaded that under a rehabilitation package, terms contained in a letter dated September 02, 1982, the Ministry of Rehabilitation transferred different tracks of land to DDA which included the land forming subject matter of the writ petition and that physical possession was taken over by DDA on November 12, 1984. It was pleaded that the site was vacant save and except a Shiv Mandir by way of encroacment covering 126 square yards. In the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India it was pleaded that the land was acquired pursuant to an award dated March 11, 1949 being award No.1304. It was pleaded that since the last page of the award was not available it was difficult to disclose the exact date of the publication of the award. It was pleaded that as per the record possession of the acquired land was taken over on March 11, 1949. 3.
Issue debated before the learned Single Judge was whether the Government made good its stand that the land was acquried as per the award in question.
4.
The reasoning against the appellant is to be found in paragraph 20 onwards of the impugned decision dated December 08, 2015. 5.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act was squarely applicable, given the fact that the writ petition was filed after more than 60 years of the award.
The truncated record has rightly been found sufficient by the learned Single Judge to hold against the appellant on the presumption raised that official acts are performed as per law. The
learned Single Judge has noted a large number of decisions to sustain the reasoning while dismissing the writ petition. 6.
The truncated record which was produced, and the reason for nonproduction of the entire record is the huge delay between the date of acquisition of the filing of the writ petition, shows that in the year 1949 an award was made which included the land forming subject matter of the writ petition. Under a package deal the land in question was transferred by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to DDA along with possession. House tax record would evince that there was a small built up structure on the land which justifies the stand taken by the Government that save and except 126 square yards where a temple was constructed after encroachment there was no construction, as claimed by the appellant, as of the year 1982 when under the package deal Ministry of Rehabilitation transferred the land to DDA. There is intrinsic evidence that enroachments by way of additional constructions were made post 1982.
7.
We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs.
CM No.350/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 06, 2016 mamta