2002 (12) TMI 607 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution and Condonation of Delay
2. Claims and Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
3. Abatement of Appeals
4. Nature of Decree: Joint and Inseverable vs. Joint and Severable

Summary:

1. Substitution and Condonation of Delay:
Special leave was granted in S.L.P. [C) Nos.11914-11915 of 1991. The Court allowed applications for substitution and condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitution for some respondents who died during the pendency of the appeals. The heirs of one Late Sultan Singh alias Ishwar Singh, who was not a party at any stage of the proceedings, filed applications to be impleaded as necessary parties, which were rejected.

2. Claims and Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act:
The Government acquired about 5500 bighas of land for the planned development of Delhi. Notifications were issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Claims were filed before the Land Acquisition Collector by three categories of claimants:
(i) Union of India and Gaon Sabha claiming the lands as 'waste land' vested with the Gaon Sabha u/s 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
(ii) Proprietors/Co-owners claiming the land was used for non-agricultural purposes and did not vest in the Gaon Sabha.
(iii) Smt. Gulab Sundari and her transferees claiming Bhumidari rights over the land.

The Additional District Judge held that the lands were 'land' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Land Reforms Act, the Bhumidari Certificate in favor of Smt. Gulab Sundari was valid, and the claims of the Union of India and Gaon Sabha were barred by res judicata. Compensation was awarded to the Bhumidar and her transferees.

3. Abatement of Appeals:
During the pendency of appeals, some appellants died, and no steps were taken to bring their legal representatives on record in time. The High Court dismissed the appeals in toto, holding that the appeals were incompetent and not validly constituted due to the abatement of some appellants. The appeals filed by the Gaon Sabha and Union of India were dismissed as barred by res judicata.

4. Nature of Decree: Joint and Inseverable vs. Joint and Severable:
The Supreme Court held that the claims of the appellants were distinct, separate, and independent, and the decree was not joint and inseverable. The High Court should have allowed the applications for impleadment and condonation of delay, facilitating an effective adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remitted the appeals to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural laws should be liberally construed to serve the ends of justice and not to deny substantial rights due to procedural lapses. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court was directed to restore the appeals to their original files for fresh disposal on merits.