Tuesday, April 30, 2013

SC orders Moga DC to get common land vacated in 3 months

Divya Goyal: Saleena(Moga), Mon Apr 29 2013, 02:57 hrs

The Supreme Court has ordered Moga Deputy Commissioner Arshdeep Singh Thind to get 208 acres of "common land", worth Rs 50 crore, vacated within three months in Saleena village of the district.

The orders came after a resident of the village, Ajay Sood, filed a special petition in the Supreme Court last year, demanding that the land be vacated from the possession of alleged encroachers.

According to the records of the revenue department, the 208 acres of land was allegedly encroached by influential families of the village. While 108 acres of this land comprised "charand" or common grazing land for cattle — belonging to the whole village — the land was under illegal possession for several years now. The rest of the land was under "individual possession". 

Earlier, the village panchayat had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard but had lost the case. "This is a historic decision and has set an example for the whole nation, urging people to raise voice against illegal encroachment and to get common land vacated for community welfare," Ajay Sood said. 

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-orders-moga-dc-to-get-common-land-vacated-in-3-months/1109064/

Copyright ©2013 The Indian Express ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, April 29, 2013

A big relief : A Supreme Court judgement serves as a deterrent to the indiscriminate land grab

Written by editor// July 9, 2012//National News//3 Comments
BY LESLIE ST. ANNE

Even as Goans lament and watch helplessly as the once verdant and fertile land of their ancestors, is sullied, raped and disfigured by huge housing complexes, innumerable hotels, specialty hospitals and white-elephant government projects put-up by unscrupulous builders from Delhi, Mumbai and Goa, ably abetted by pliant local politicians, an effective weapon of control wielded by the Country’s Apex Court lies with the State’s highest bureaucrat – the Chief Secretary.

The stalling of implementation of the Regional Plan 2021 notwithstanding, a judgment by the Supreme Court in dismissal of a Civil Appeal filed against the State of Punjab arising out of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No.19869/2010 should have served as a deterrent to the indiscriminate land grab and use of ‘community lands and water bodies for purpose of housing and other ostensible government and private development projects —- which in Goa could certainly encompass Communidade properties.

The two member bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Honorable Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, while disposing of the Civil Appeal No.1132/2011 @ SLP (C) No.3109/2011 filed by a local builder /developer against the Punjab Government, pointed out that ‘since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India variously called ‘Gram Sabha Land’, Gram Panchayat Land (in many North Indian States) (sic), which were for centuries used for common benefit of villagers of the village for various purposes, for e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing the harvested grain, for grazing ground, as a maidan for their children to play, threshing floor, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water-bodies, passages, cremation ground , graveyards etc..’

The Justices observed that ‘these lands stood vested through local laws in the State and were generally treated as inalienable in order that  their status as community land is preserved. There were no doubt exceptions to the rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Panchayat to  lease out some of this land to landless laborers and members of Scheduled Castes/ Tribes. But this was done only in exceptional cases’.

Taking strong cognizance of the Appeal filed by one Jaspal Singh and others seeking to overturn an ‘impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21/5/2010’ which had upheld an earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court pronounced on 10/02/2010, the Supreme Court Judges were blatantly blunt while arriving at their ruling. “What we have observed since Independence, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons, using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal land and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This Appeal is a glaring example of this state of affairs,” the Apex Court observed.

The honorable SC justices were of a view that ‘the appellants were ‘neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question –in this case  recorded as a pond –situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District Punjab. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants (sic) and they appear to have filled the village pond and made constructions thereon.’

The chain of events that led to the Supreme Court ruling began with the Gram Panchayat Rohar Jagir, filing an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, to evict the respondents therein, Jaspal Singh and others who had ‘unauthorizedly’ occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition, the Gram Panchayat Rohar Jagir had alleged that ‘the land in question belonged to the Gram  Panchayat, Rohar, as is clear from land revenue records.’

However, ‘the respondents (appellants herein) had forcibly occupied the said land and begun making constructions thereon illegally. An application was consequently moved before the Deputy Commissioner informing him about the illegal acts of the respondents (appellants  herein) and stating that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Toba – a village pond. The petition stated that the villagers have been using the same since drain water of the village falls into the pond and it is used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing. An FIR was also filed against the respondents but to no avail. It was alleged that the latter ‘have illegally raised constructions on  the said land and lower officials of the department and Gram Panchayat had colluded with them.’

In compiling their ruling, the two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, observed that surprisingly ‘instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized occupants, the Collector Patiala held that ‘it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead had directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover from the respondents (appellants herein) the cost of the land as per the Collector’s rates.’ ‘Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants herein) have spent huge money on constructing houses on the said land’, opined the learned Justices.

The SC Bench noted that in a further turn of events ‘some persons filed an Appeal before the Commissioner challenging the Order of the Patiala Collector on September 13, 2005. The Appeal was allowed on December 12, 2007. The Commissioner held that it was clear that the Gram Panchayat was colluding with these respondents as it had not even opposed the Order passed by the Collector in which directions were  issued to the Gram Panchayat to transfer the property to these persons nor filed an Appeal against the Collector’s Order.’

Evidence produced before the SC Bench showed that the Commissioner while disposing of that Appeal, had held that ‘the village pond has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by any private respondents, whether Jagirdars or anybody else.’ Photographs submitted before the Commissioner showed that recent attempts had been made to encroach into  the village pond by filling it up with earth and making new constructions thereon. When the matter had gone to the officials for the removal of these illegal constructions, no action was taken for reasons best known to the authorities at that time. The Commissioner was of view that ‘regularizing such kind of illegal encroachment is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat and that Kharsra No.369 (84-4) is part of the  village pond , and the respondents (appellants herein) illegally constructed their houses at the site without any jurisdiction and without even any resolution of the Gram Panchayat.’
Against this Order of the Commissioner, a Writ Petition was filed before the honorable Single Judge of the High Court. This Petition was dismissed by the honorable Single Judge vide a Judgment dated 10/2/2010. The dismissal was further upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. The petitioners then went in Appeal before the two-member Bench of the Country’s Apex Court.

The Honorable Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sadhu Mishra, while dismissing the Appeal, were caustic in their ruling. They said, “We find no merit in this Appeal. The Appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land using muscle power/money power and in collusion with officials and even the Gram Panchayat. We are of opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village.”

While annulling a letter from the Government of Punjab ‘permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants’, the Supreme Court Bench opined that ‘such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Such illegalities cannot be regularized and we  cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.’

Citing a case where the Supreme Court had ordered the restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at a cost of over Rs.100 crores, and another where the Apex Court had held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned  constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception, Justices Kajtu and Mishra, opined that ‘this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of common land. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the  land has been leased to landless laborers or members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers or a dispensary for them.’


The Supreme Court Bench was scathingly critical on the issuance of government orders by many States ‘permitting allotment of Gram Sabha  land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money’. All such Government Orders are illegal and should be ignored, the Apex Court opined.


Referring to an earlier Supreme Court judgment (AIR 2001 SC 3215) where it was held that ‘land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to  be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose’, Justices Kajtu and Mishra hailed the wisdom of the past generation. “Our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water  was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served for thousands of years”, they said.

In dismissal of the Appeal of Jaspal Singh for want of merit, the honorable Supreme Court Bench rued the fact that ‘over the last few decades, most of the ponds in our Country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to  businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/ Gram Panchayat officials and even this money collected from these so called  auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when such  malpractices must stop,’ the Court warned.


Finally in conclusion, the Supreme Court Bench directed “all State Governments in the Country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat for common use of villagers of the village.”

For this purpose, the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments / Union Territories of India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a  show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession,” the Supreme Court Order has specified. A copy of this Order has been sent to all Chief Secretaries with instructions to ensure strict and prompt compliance (sic) and reports to be sent to the Apex Court from time to time.


Granted that this Supreme Court Order is specific to a pond, but its emphasis must not be lost as it seeks to protect ‘community lands’ from abuse by land-grab sharks who wield muscle and money power. Given that Goa is unique in that a vast portion of its land comprising ponds, water bodies, verdant fields and hillocks belong to the Communidades (village communities)—which have in recent years been usurped, by draconian State Acts—this ruling should come as a welcome bludgeon for sincere local social activists striving to preserve Goa’s pristine eco-structure!UTS’
© 2012 UTS' Voice



Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Woman president empowers this Madurai panchayat

V Devanathan, TNN Apr 21, 2013, 02.31AM IST

MADURAI: Residents of Thirali, a panchayat of 5,400 people in Madurai district, were unaware all these years that a three-acre agricultural plot in the possession of a villager was once a water tank. For more than half a century, the owner was farming in the land.

Recently, the panchayat recovered the land and restored it to its original state of a water body. In the past one-and-a-half years, Thirali panchayat has recovered about 50 acres of village land that had been encroached upon for several years.
Villagers attribute this remarkable land recovery spree to the 52-year-old woman panchayat president Chandra Pitchai. Pitchai, who was recently awarded the best woman panchayat president in Madurai district, has been working for long to make Thirali a model panchayat.

One of her initiatives was to make villagers pay taxes. Now, Thirali residents proudly claim that none in the village defaults on taxes. "Initially, residents didn't support me when I insisted that they pay the taxes properly. Similarly, they were against removal of encroachments. However, they gradually understood the importance of paying taxes and the advantages of keeping the river area free of encroachments," she says.
Pitchai describes herself as uneducated though she can read and write Tamil and English. She even took an initiative to provide free tuition to students from the villages up to Class 12.
©2013 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.

Monday, April 22, 2013

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI


Appeal No. 91/07
Daryao Singh & Ors. v/s Gaon Sabha Goela Khurd
IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI
Daryao Singh & Ors .............................................. Appellants
Vs.
Gaon Sabha Goela Khurd ..................................... Respondent
JUDGEMENT

This shall dispose of the appeal dated 07/06/2007 filed by the appellants herein above u/s 185 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the order dated 01/06/2007 passed by RA/SDM (Delhi Cantt.) in Case No. 286/NG/RA/2001 u/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954. Vide the impugned order the case of the appellants has been dismissed in respect of land bearing Rect. No. 3 Khasra No.9 (4-16), 12 (4-15) and 13 (4-16) in village Goela Khurd, Najafgarh, New Delhi.

Both the parties were heard at length. The case of the appellant is that he is in adverse cultivatory possession of the suit land since 1969 & enough evidence was produced by the appellant to prove his possession for more than 3 years. Further it is argued that the cultivatory possession of the father/predecessor of the appellants was duly proved before the Ld. RA who was pleased to dismiss the proceedings under section 86 - A vide order dated 30.5.1973 after holding appellant's father to be in continuous physical cultivatory possession of the land which stood proved for a period of more than 6 years. That the Gaon Sabha did not file any appeal against the order dated 30.5.1973. Further, it is stated that neither appellants admitted nor there is anything on record to prove that the suit land is a cremation ground. Respondent has argued that the order of the RA is correct and it is clearly held that the said land is a cremation ground and the appellant has encroached upon the same. Regarding the order dated 30.05.1973 of the RA u/s 86A of the DLR Act. 1954 the same was dismissed in default of appearance of the Gaon Sabha without giving the Gaon Sabha any opportunity and the suit land is a vacant land in continuous possession of the Gaon Sabha. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the appellant and perusing the material on record it is seen that the appellant
hereinabove has been encroaching upon the suit land which is a Govt. land since long time. The only plea taken by the appellant is that he is in the possession on Govt. land for long time therefore he should be declared Bhumidar u/s 85 of the DLR Act, 1954 on the basis of adverse possession. The issue is duly considered by the RA and after appreciation of all facts and records has issued a reasoned order on merits.

Notwithstanding the above, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Hemaji Waghaji Jat v/s Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others (AIR 2009 SC 103) that-

"the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who is a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. " Further the Apex Court has gone on to emphasize as to "why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to loose its possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. "

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal of the appellant hereinabove lacks merit. Further as per the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 and SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha. Hence the order:

ORDER
In view of the observations made in the judgement, appeal dated 07/06/2007 filed by the appellants herein above u/s 185 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the order dated 01 /06/2007 passed by RA/SDM (Delhi Cantt.) in Case No. 286/NG/RA/2001 u/s 85 of DLR Act, 1954 is hereby dismissed. The BDO, South West is hereby directed to take necessary action in time bound manner.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 14th day of January 2013.

Vikas Anand, IAS
Dy. Commissioner & Collector
Copy to:
  1. SDM, Najafgarh
  2. BDO, South West
  3. Both the parties




Friday, April 19, 2013

Encroachment of ponds continues despite SC order


Faiz Rahman Siddiqui, TNN|Apr 18, 2013, 04.41 AM IST

KANPUR: The Supreme Court order directing authorities to check encroachment on water bodies in their jurisdiction seems to have had little effect on the administrative machinery of Kanpur Dehat district which is turning a blind eye to indiscriminate encroachment and filling up of ponds.

Village ponds commonly known as 'talaab' which happen to be an integral part of rural life and play an important role in maintaining rural ecology have been disappearing fast throughout Kanpur Dehat district. In most cases, these ponds have either been encroached upon or being used as dumping site or bathing site for domestic animals. A total of 900 village ponds spread on 661.87 hectares of land, have been encroached upon by influential locals and villagers or are being used as a dumping site. According to data provided by the district's revenue department, in 1950, nearly 7,927 ponds used to exist on 3996.64 acres of land across 10 blocks and- tehsils including Akbarpur, Sikandara, Rajpur, Malasa, Rasoolabad, Sarwan Kheda, Maitha, Jhinjhak, Sandalpur, Bhognipur and Amraudha of the district. Now, only 7,037 ponds exist on 3334.77 acres of land across the district.

Only last year, the state revenue department following the High Court's directives had also passed an order for surveying various districts to assess the magnitude of encroachment over water bodies in the state, but none of the officials in the district's revenue department were aware of any such orders.

According to Jal Sansthan, vanishing ponds and other water bodies have made a direct impact on the groundwater level in the district, and it has depleted majorly in the past few years. " There are few villages and localities where groundwater level has receded up to one metre while in several other villages, particularly in Rajpur block, the water level depleted by around one and a half metres to two metres,' a source said. 

"Womenfolk here are being forced to walk for miles to fetch potable water," rues Deepak Mishra, a Rajpur local, adding that in a few villages, people literally fight for water.

Not only this, many such ponds in the district's Kandhi area and Rajpur block, which were once considered to be a favourite destination of local and migratory birds, are gradually losing their charm. "Earlier, these village ponds with water-bodies used to attract a huge number of migratory as well as local birds and were being acknowledged as favourite hotspots and breeding ground of avian species. But no more, as many of these water bodies have either been encroached upon by land sharks or are being used as a garbage dumping site and bathing site of domestice animals or drying up due to poor management," says NK Katiyar, a local villager.

Meanwhile, SDM Sameer Verma, said, "The ponds woukd soon get a facelift and those found to be involved in land grabbing would be severely dealt with. Earlier also on several occassions, we had launched a drive to get the water-bodies freed from land grabbers and villagers, who were booked and penalised for violation norms."


© 2013 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI


Appeal No. 30;12
Tara Chand v/s Union of India & Ors
IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR

DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI
Tara Chand .... Appellant

Vs.

Union of India & Others .... Respondent

JUDGEMENT

This shall dispose of the appeal dated 24/12/2010 filed by the appellant hereinabove u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 11/06/1997 of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) in Case No. SDM/VV/97/1056 issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954. Vide the said order the SDM/RA has ejected the appellant from the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 1856 and 1859 situated within the revenue estate of Village Rajokari, Delhi aggregating to 18 bighas 15 biswas approx. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court. The appeal is accompanied by the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

The appellant was heard at length. After hearing the appellant hereinabove and perusing the material on record it is observed that there are two issues to be determined in the present appeal. First is on the condonation of delay and other is on the maintainability of the appeal. Regarding the condonation of delay the core issue to be determined is whether the applicant 's delay in filing the present appeal can be condoned in light of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 is an exception to Section 3 and is an enabling provision. It applies on applications and appeals and not to suit and execution applications. Section 5 gives double discretion to the Court i.e. the Court first has to see if there was sufficient cause proved by the applicant and then, if sufficient cause is proved, also the position of the opposite party is to be seen and then , the Court has to balance the interests of the two parties. Though this Court cannot be hyper-technical and has to be liberal in its approach, yet it shall also be vigilant that the party has not deliberately delayed to buy more time . The Court cannot be so liberal as to the substantive essence of the Limitation Act itself is jettisoned.

In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lanka Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), while dismissing the appeal, has held that the discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is not unlimited and there is no unbridled discretionary power. It has to be exercised within reasonable bounds in a systematic manner bound by reason. Whims & fancies, predictions and prejudices cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary power.

In the present case, applicant's behaviour smacks of malafide and complete lack of good faith. By preferring a writ petition to the Hon'ble High Court without exhausting the available remedy of appeal to the present Court as explicitly given under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 shows the deliberate act of delaying to buy more time. There is absolutely no sufficient cause shown by the applicant for the aforesaid. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

Further, regarding the maintainability of the appeal this Court also finds no infirmity in the order of the SDM/RA dated 17.06.1997 whereby the appellant has been ejected under section 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Supreme Court in case titled Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others has held that:

The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation
is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the trite owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the trite owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the trite owner. We fail to comprehend why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to lose its possession only because of his`. inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. "

Lastly, such situations have been foreseen by the Hon. Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 and SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 and thereby it was directed that the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha. Hence the order:

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal dated 24/12/2010 filed by the appellant hereinabove u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 11/06/1997 of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) in Case No. SDM/VV/97/1056 issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954 is hereby dismissed as non-maintainable both on grounds of limitation as well as merits and accordingly. the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) and BDO (South West) are directed to take further necessary action in time bound manner.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 25th day of October, 2012.

Vikas Anand, IAS
Dy. Commissioner & Collector

Copy to:
  1. SDM, Vasant Vihar
  2. BDO, South West
  3. Both the parties