V * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 30, 2007 W.P.(C) 303/2007 & CM 507/2007 JEET SINGH &ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LANDACQUISITION COLLECTOR& ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER For orders see the common judgment dated 30.5.2007 in CM (M) No.249/2007 etc. {AAI v. Karan Singb etc.) May 30,2007 S. Muralidhar J. raj P Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Date of reserve: April 2, 2007 Date of decision: May 30, 2007 1. CM(M) 249/2007 & CM 2529/2007 # AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner ! Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjana Gosain with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocate versus $ KAEIAN SINGH & ORS. Respondents Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-3 Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 2. CM{M) 250/2007 & CM 2531/2007 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner Through Ms. Anjana Gosain with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocates versus ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondents Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-3 Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 3. CM(M) 255/2007 & CM 2554/2007 NODAL OFFICER/ADM (SW) Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. versus ISHAWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Ms. Shobhna TaMar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 4. CM(M) 251/2007 & CM 2533/2007 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjana Gosain with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocates versus BHOOP SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. CM(M) 249/2007 1 of 78 Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate for Nodal Officer. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 5. CM(M) 253/2007 & CM 2545/2007 NODAL OFFICER/ADM (SW) Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. versus BHOOP SINGH & ORS. Respondents Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Ms. Shobhna TaMar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 6. CM(M) 252/2007 & CM 2542/2007 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner Through Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Advocate. versus UMED SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 7. CM(M) 254/2007 & CM 2547/2007 NODAL OFFICER/ADM (SW) Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. versus UMED SINGH & ORS. Respondents Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Ms Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Vernia, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 8. W.P. (C) 24110/2005 & CM No. 16014/2005 KHUSHALI PETITIONER Through Mr. Kunwar Uday Bhan, Advocate. versus VICE CHAIRMAN D.D.A. & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta with Ms. Shikha Tandon for R-3. Mr. Sanjay Sherawat with Mr. Baljeet, Advocates for R-4 to R-7. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate for Nodal Officer. CM(M) 249/2007 2 of 78 Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 9. W.P.(C) 152/2007 & CM 282/2007 BALJEET SINGH Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. versus D.D.A. ORS. Respondents Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Advocate for R-2. ' Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate for Nodal Officer. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 10. W.P.{C) 415/2007 & CM 736/2007 SURAJ MAL Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate for Nodal Officer. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 11. W.P.(C) 782/2007 & CM 1478/2007 NIRMALA DEV Petitioner Through Mr. O.P. Arya with Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Advocates. versus K.K. DAHIYA(NUDALOFFICER) & ANR Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocate for AAI. . Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 12. W.P.(C) 21108-09/2005 & CM 13858/2005 GEETAWATI & ANR Petitioners Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuanwar Udai Bhan, Advocate. versus INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY & ANR Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC. Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate for DDA. CM(M) 249/2007 3 of 78 Mr. Ravi Verma, Mr, Milanka ChaudKary and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for DIAPL. 13. W.P.(C) 308/2007 & CM 518/2007 SURESH CHAND SHARMA & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & O Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 14. W.P.(C) 301/2007 & CM 502/2007 SARUP SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. Y.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 15. W.P.(C) 302/2007 & CMS 504, 506/2007 RANBIR SINGH & ORS. Petitioners^ - Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. W.P.(C) 303/2007 & CM 507/2007 JEET SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. CM(M) 249/2007 4 of 78 17. W.P.(C) 1100/2007 & CM 1936/2007 DAYA CHAND & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 18. W.P.(C) 1123/2007 & CM 1977/2007 BALLU SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 19. W.P.(C) 1699/2007 & CM 3122/2007 DAYA NAND & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocatet for DDA. 20. W.P.(C) 307/2007 JAIPAL SINGH . Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhaiy, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. - 21. W.P.(C) 304/2007 CM(M) 249/2007 5 of 78 ZILE SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shalt Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITIONCOLLECTOR& ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Sharma and Ms. Nitika Mangla, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 22. W.P.(C) 306/2007 MAHENDER SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate^ versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR& ORS Respondents. Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 23. W.P.(C) 300/2007 SAT PAL SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Advocate for DIAPL. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate for AAI. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. 24. W.P.(C) 4001/2007 & CMS 7561-62/2007 PRATAP SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate for LAC. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for AAI. 25. W.P.(C) 4113/2007 & CM No 7755/2007 KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. Petitioners CM(M) 249/2007 6 of 78 Through Mr. Kunwar Udai Bhan, Advocate versus K.K.DAHIYA & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Rajiv Bansal Advocate for DDA. Mr. Manas Mohapatra, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURAUDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Dr. S. MURAUDHAR. T. Introduction 1. These petitions concern the claims for allotment of alternative land made by the residents of Nangal Devat village in the vicinity of the international airport at Delhi. Their lands were acquired over two, decades ago under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('LA Act') for the purpose of expansion of the airport. During the course of the proceedings in this Court challenging the acquisition, the respondents, which included the Airports Authority of India (AAI) came up with a rehabilitation scheme, offering the landholders alternative plots in village Rangpuri, near Vasant Kunj in Delhi. The land holders then gave up their challenge to the acquisition and the focus shifted to devising a mechanism for dealing with their disputed claims for allotment of alternative plots at Rangpuri. Through a series of orders, to which a reference will be made hereafter, this Court appointed a Nodal Officer and entrusted him with the task of determining eligibility of the claimants and the tenability of their claims. Guidelines for disposing of the claims were approved and made part of the order of this Court. Persons aggrieved by the orders passed by the Nodal Officer in their individual claim petitions were permitted to challenge those orders by separate proceedings. The Nodal Officer having disposed of the claims, CM(M) 249/2007 7 of 78 the aggrieved claimants have filed these petitions before this Court. Some others, including those who did not file their claims before the Nodal Officer, approached the civil court. The civil court passed interim orders directing a re-survey of the lands in question. Aggrieved by the interim order, the AAI and the Nodal Officer have filed revision petitions in this Court which are also being disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The background to the filing of these petitions was that on 28.4.1972, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the LA Act proposing to acquire 289 bighas and 9 biswas of the land in village Nangal Devat for the public purpose for expansion of the Palam Airport at Delhi. This was followed by a declaration on 28.8.1979 under Section 6 of the LA Act. On 14.8.1986, the land acquisition Collector (LAC) issued an award No. 16/86-87 determining the area under the acquisition as 263 bighas and 5 biswas. The award determined the claims for compensation for land, structures and trees separately. It indicated the precise amounts of compensation of the structures claimant-wise. 3. The Nangal Devat village consists of the old abadi (Lai Dora) area as well as the extended abadi area. While a revenue record exists in relation to the extended abadi area, no revenue record was available for the old abadi (Lai Dora) area. A survey was accordingly conducted in 1972-73 in respect of the lands in the old abadi area. This survey also covered the structures in the extended abadi area. On the basis of the survey report for the old abadi and the revenue record for the extended abadi, two Naksha Muntazamins were prepared, one for the CM(M) 249/2007 8 of 78 apportionment of the compensation for land and the other for the apportionment of compensation for the structures. Proceedings in this Court 4. The award was challenged in this Court by many of the landholders in W.P. (C) No. 481 of 1982 {Daryao Singh vs.Union of India). On 2.8.2001, an order was passed by this Court recording the submission of AAI that all persons whose names appeared in the award would be allotted alternative land in terms of a rehabilitation scheme that would be framed within six months. Consequentiy, the petitioners gave up their challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and on that basis, the writ petition was disposed of. 5. Subsequentiy, one of the petitioners filed a Review Application No. 9312 of 2001 stating that the concession made by the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 481 of 1982 was without his consent and, therefore, the matter should be re-opened. His review application was kept pending. In the meanwhile, on account of the slow progress made in announcing the rehabihtation scheme and the allotment of alternative land thereunder, the original writ petitioners returned to this Court, by filing contempt petitions and applications in the disposed of writ petition. 6. During the hearing of the contempt petitions on 17.12.2002, the Court was informed that at a meeting held on 9.8.2002' with the Lt.Govemor, it had been decided to modify the layout plan so as to increase the area of the alternate plots to be allotted at village Rangpuri. Notice was then issued to the Union of India and the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority (DDA) to inform the court of the progress in CM(M) 249/2007 9 of 78 finalizing the layout plan and making the allotment of alternate plots. However three months later, on 12.3.2003, this Court noted that the allotment of alternate plots was yet to take place. The AAI sought six more months for the purpose. Finding little progress in the matter, the Court directed the DDA to inform it of the steps taken pursuant the decision taken on 9.8.2002. The matters were listed for 2.4.2003. 7. On 30.9.2003 this Court was informed by the AAI that categorization of the alternate plots had been done and those whose lands had been acquired in village Nangal Devat would be entitled to the following sizes of alternate plots n village Rangpuri: SI. Landholding in Nangal Dewat (sq.m.) Size of plot to be No. allotted in Ranqpuri (sq.m) 1. 32 sq. m. and below 26 2. Above 32 sq. m and upto 48 sq. m 40 3. Above 48 sq. m and upto 80 sq. m 64 4. Above 80 sq. m and upto 100 sq. m 90 5. Above 100 sq. m and upto 140 sq. m 100 6. Above 140 sq. m and upto 180 sq. m 160 7. Above 180 sq. m and upto 250 sq. m 200 8. Above 250 sq. m and upto 350 sq. m 250 9. Above 350 sq. m and upto 550 sq. m 350 10. Above 550 sq. m and upto 800 sq. m 450 11. Above 800 sq. m and upto 1500 sq. m 550 12. Above 1500 sq. m 650 8. On 29.10.2003 the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Mr.S.S. Kanawat, informed the Court that at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 LAA, "a list of all those persons who were in possession of the land wth the area in their possession as on the date of acquisition was prepared." The Court directed that list to be filed in Court within four weeks. 9. Thereafter, on 14.1.2004 Mr.Kanawat filed in this Court the list of CM(M) 249/2007 10 of 78 persons in village Nangal Devat who were entitled to the alternative plots of land in village Rangpuri. In this list the names of the land owners, the names of the persons whose structures were found on the land, the share of such person, khasra number and the total extent which was being acquired were all indicated. The Court directed the list to be circulated to all the counsel who were permitted to make submissions thereon at the subsequent date of hearing. 10. On 28.4.2004, this Court appointed Mr. Kanawat, the LAC as the Nodal Officer to "find out eligibility of different persons in different categories." The AAI was asked to give relevant data to the Nodal Officer, and he was directed to prepare a list of the eligible persons after considering the objections of the different parties. Further, it was directed that "If there is an issue of eligibility of a particular category of persons, the list should be prepared and the eligibility of that category will be considered by the Court." Liberty was granted to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days. As regards the names of persons missing from the list of eligible persons prepared as of that date, the Court directed that "the Officer will also consider the requests of the persons who claim that their names have been mistakenly missed out from the list." The Court permitted the Nodal Officer to take a decision in respect of issues arising for drawing up the list. The parties seeking to intervene or get impleaded were, also asked to approach the Nodal Officer with all their claims. 11. Four months later on 26.8.2004, the Court was informed that the Nodal Officer was performing exercise entrusted to him by the previous order dated 28.4.2004 and the status report showed that there was delay on the part of the applicants in approaching the Nodal Officer CM(M) 249/2007 11 of 78 c and accordingly the exercise was get delayed. The Court then observed that "delay in moving the apphcations is condoned, but it is made clear that since sufficient time has been passed, there is no question of any further time to any person " 12. Further proceedings took place on 16.12.2004. The Court recorded that "The Nodal Officer is present and states that the exercise is complete whereby a consohdated list of entitled persons numbering 316 has been made. Copies of the list have been given to learned counsel for the private parties." A grievance was made to the Court that persons forming part of the Harijan and Backward Jan Kalyan Samiti have not been included in the list. The explanation offered by the Nodal Officer was that the allotment was made by the Gaon Sabha in respect of some individuals included in the list while in other cases the land was allotted to the community as a whole and not to individual persons. The Court then took the view that "In terms of the total land allotted, such community would also be entitled to allotment of plots as a group. How they divide the same between themselves is their business." 13. Consequent upon the order dated 16.12.2004 when this Court permitted the individuals who had objections to the list of eligible persons to file objections in this Court, around 82 applications were filed by such objectors. On 14.1,2005, this Court directed in those apphcations that persons found ehgible by the Nodal Officer would participate in the draw of lots to be conducted by the DDA. The Court further clarified that the allotment of plots pursuant thereto would be subject to further orders. CM(M) 249/2007 12 of 78 The Order dated 18.5.2005 14. During the hearing of 82 applications, this Court was able to get the parties to identify the outstanding issues and also suggests certain guidelines and criteria to address these issues. These applications ultimately came to be disposed of by an order dated 18.5.2005 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin. The Court in the said order recorded that there were three main concerns of the applicants. The first was when "name of the objectors/claimants does not appear in the record as on 28.4.1972.•" For such cases this court observed that the hmited jurisdiction of the Nodal Officer did not permit him to decide the right and entitlement of such person which may have to be determined in either probate proceedings or the title suits found upon the law of succession. Therefore, it was directed that "For all such cases or similar cases, DDA and AAI would keep in abeyance the claim for the allotment of plot pending determination of entitlement/title by the Competent Court." 15. The second category of cases was "those where the name of the original holder appears in the records as on 28.4.1972 but has expired subsequent to 28.4.1972 and application(s) by the LRs for mutation is/are pending." As regards this category, the Court directed that "such cases would be considered for joint allotment to LRs based on their eligibility and entitlement of the original holders as regards the extent of land and the category." 16. The third category of objectionswas on behalf of the applicants in respect of whom "the land was owned by the father while independent structures were raised by his sons and legal representatives" and "the entitlement of alternate plot was being determined on the basis of the CM(M) 249/2007 13 of 78 extent of land held by the original land holder," In this regard, it was submitted that there were legal heirs who despite owning a separate and distinctive structure, and their names figuring for the purposes of compensation, were "deprived of the benefit of individual entitlement of alternative plots based on the proportionate land falling underneath their respective structures." In respect of this category, it was directed that such legal heirs/applicants would be eligible for allotment of individual alternate plots upon the following conditions: "(i) Name of the legal heirs appear separately in the survey report and Naksha Munta Zamin in respect of distinct holdings; (ii) Legal heirs who have raised separate structures in separate holdings for which they are given separate compensation in the award." 17. In its order dated 18.5.2005, the Court also approved the following guidelines agreed upon by the counsel for the parties: "l.Any person, whose name finds mention either in the Survey Report (which relates to the old Abadi), or the Jamabandi as on 28.4.1972 and the Naksha Muntazamin, would be eligible for allotment of an alternative plot. 2. Persons whose names appear at more than one place either in old/extended abadi in the individual capacity of as legal heir of any other person and either in the Jamabandi or the survey report, his total holding of land shall be considered for determining size of the plot. 3. If a person has died intestate after 28.4.1972, the legal heirs will be jointlyentitled for allotmentof a plot only. However, where one or more of the legal heirs have their own separate holding or a plot then the proportionate share in the persons' plot shall be added CM(M) 249/2007 14 73 to his/their own holding for determining categorization and size of plot to be allotted. 4. Upon the death of recorded owner after 28.4.1972, leaving a Will and the Revenue Authorities based on the Will have carried out the mutation in the Jamabandi in favour of the L.Rs., then all the L.Rs. shall be entitled to allotment of a plot jointly. In case,