9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1302 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Delhi Development Authority (the DDA) land of the respondents and others was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release 14, 15, 82, 253/- for payment of compensation can be treated as person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ( the Act ) and it was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determining the compensation is the question which arises for consideration in these petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby market value of the acquired land was fixed at 2, 000/- per sq. yd. and direction was issued for payment of compensation to the contesting respondents with 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest. HELD THAT - We hold that the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions local authority Section 3(aa) and person interested and was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector; the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him; the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity; the Division Bench of the HC also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation. In the result the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as also the judgments of the Reference Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Reference Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment of the High Court and this judgment. the cross-objections filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector in C.A. Nos.6564 and 6565 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. However as the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court have been set aside and a direction has been given for fresh determination of the amount of compensation payable to the respondents the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court. Since the matter is more than 32 years old we direct the Reference Court to decide the matter as early as possible but latest within 9 months from the of date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. We further direct that if the amount of enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court vide judgments dated 27.7.1980 and 14.5.1994 has already been paid to the respondents or their predecessors then they shall not be required to refund the same.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) can be treated as a "person interested" under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Whether the DDA was entitled to notice and an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court. 3. Whether the delay in filing the special leave petitions by the DDA should be condoned. 4. Whether the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation without notice to the DDA is valid. 5. Whether the DDA's failure to be made a party in the proceedings affects the validity of the compensation determination. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the DDA can be treated as a "person interested" under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Supreme Court held that the DDA falls within the definition of "local authority" under Section 3(aa) and "person interested" under Section 3(b) of the Act. The Court explained that the definitions of these expressions are inclusive and not exhaustive, and the DDA, being an authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, for promoting and securing the development of Delhi, is covered by these definitions. The Court cited previous judgments, including Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, to support the view that the DDA has a vital interest in the land acquisition proceedings and is entitled to participate in them. 2. Whether the DDA was entitled to notice and an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court: The Court held that Section 50(2) of the Act, which allows a local authority or company to appear and adduce evidence in proceedings before the Collector or Court, implicitly requires that the DDA be given notice and an opportunity to participate. The Court emphasized that this requirement is a statutory embodiment of the rules of natural justice, ensuring that the DDA can contest the compensation claims made by landowners. The failure to issue notice to the DDA and allow it to adduce evidence was deemed fatal to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the judgments of the Reference Court. 3. Whether the delay in filing the special leave petitions by the DDA should be condoned: The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the special leave petitions, applying the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani. The Court found that the delay was justified as the DDA took steps to collect the necessary papers, sought legal opinions, and then filed the petitions. The Court noted that the DDA's functionaries only became aware of the High Court's judgment in June 1999, and the delay in filing was not due to any contumacious conduct. 4. Whether the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation without notice to the DDA is valid: The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a serious error by enhancing the compensation without giving the DDA an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that the DDA was entitled to notice and a chance to adduce evidence before the Reference Court and the High Court. The failure to do so rendered the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court null and void. The Court cited the Constitution Bench's decision in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, which held that a local authority must be given notice and an opportunity to participate in compensation determination proceedings. 5. Whether the DDA's failure to be made a party in the proceedings affects the validity of the compensation determination: The Supreme Court concluded that the DDA's failure to be made a party in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court was a significant procedural lapse. The Court held that the DDA should have been impleaded as a party to ensure a fair determination of compensation. The judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination after giving the DDA an opportunity to participate and adduce evidence. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court and the Reference Court were set aside. The matters were remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation, with directions to give the DDA an opportunity to participate. The Reference Court was instructed to decide the matter within nine months. If the enhanced compensation had already been paid to the respondents, they were not required to refund it. The cross-objections filed by the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector were disposed of as infructuous.
|
