Bir Wati vs Union of India

Bir Wati & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.A. Appeal

Nos.587-589 of 2005 at Chandigarh in C.R. No.

3823 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellants herein affirming the

order dated 21.04.2005 of the Additional District

Judge, Delhi in L.A.C. No.21 of 2000 dismissing the

reference petition filed by the appellants-claimants Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.08.21 17:05:14 IST Reason: 1 under the Land Acquisition Act as barred by

limitation.

2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate

the short controversy involved in the appeal.

3) The appellants are legal representatives of one

Jugal Kishore. On 06.04.1964, the appropriate

Government (Delhi) issued a notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for acquiring a

huge track of land in nearby areas of Delhi. The

acquisition was for a public purpose, viz., "planned

development of the area".

4) It was followed by the declaration issued under

Section 6 of the Act on 15.06.1965 followed by

issuance of notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the

Act to all the interested persons whose lands were

acquired pursuant to the aforementioned

notifications. The Land Acquisition Officer passed

2 the award (award No. 1934-C/Suppl/80-81) on

06.02.1981. In the award, the Land Acquisition

Officer (LAO) fixed the rate at Rs.20/25 per square

yard=Rs.2250/- per Bigha for paying the

compensation to the landowners for their land.

5) The land belonging to Jugal Kishore was also

acquired in these acquisition proceedings along with

other lands. Jugal Kishore, unfortunately, expired

pending these proceedings leaving behind his legal

representatives (appellants herein). So far as the

present appellants are concerned, they were not

aware of the passing of the award because they were

neither present when the award was passed and nor

were served with the notice of the award under

Section 12(2) of the Act and nor did they receive any

notice in the name of Late Jugal Kishore.

6) It was for this reason that though the award

was passed way back on 06.02.1981, the appellants

received the compensation pursuant to the said

3 award on 13.04.1998 almost after 18 years. The

appellants then on 16.5.1998 applied to the

Collector under Section 18 (2) of the Act and prayed

therein for making a reference to the Civil Court for

re-determination of the compensation determined

by the LAO. The Collector forwarded this application

to the District Judge, New Delhi. It was registered

as L.A.C No. 21/2000.

7) The Additional District Judge, by order dated

21.4.2005 dismissed the reference as barred by

time. Since the reference was dismissed as being

barred by limitation, the merits of the case were not

gone into. The appellants carried the matter in

appeal to the High Court under Section 54 of the

Act. The High Court, by impugned judgment,

dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the

Additional District Judge. In the opinion of the High

Court also, the reference made by the appellants

was barred by limitation as prescribed under

4 Section 18 and was thus rightly dismissed by the

Civil Court. Against this order, the appellants

(landowners) felt aggrieved and filed the appeal by

way of special leave petition in this Court.

8) As stated by the learned counsel for the

appellants, several other landowners whose lands

were also acquired along with the appellants’ land

pursuant to Section 4 and 6 notifications referred

supra, had filed reference application to the Civil

Court against the award dated 06.02.1981. The

Civil Court by award re-determined the

compensation and enhanced it to Rs.12,000/- per

Bigha. It was stated that the Government accepted

the award of the reference Court (Civil Court) and

paid the enhanced compensation to those

landowners.

9) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

5 are inclined to dispose of the appeal with the

following observations and directions:

10) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Hansoli Devi &

Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 273, a two Judge Bench of this

Court referred three specific questions to the larger

Bench of Five Judges for answer. These three

questions read as under:

“1. (a) Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to ‘not filing an application’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(b) Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act?

2. Whether a person who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is ‘a person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 28-A?”

6

11) So far as question 1 (b) with which we are

concerned here, it was answered in Para 10 which

reads as under:

“10. So far as Question 1(b) is concerned, this is really the same question, as in Question 1(a) and, therefore, we reiterate that when an application of a landowner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said landowner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.”

12) In the light of aforesaid law laid down by this

Court, one cannot dispute that so far as the

appellants are concerned, notwithstanding

dismissal of their reference application as being

barred by limitation by the reference Court and the

High Court, they still have a right to apply under

Section 28-A of the Act to the Collector for

re-determination of the compensation payable to

them on the basis of the compensation awarded by

the reference Court to other similarly situated

7 landowners whose land was acquired along with the

appellants’ land.

13) It is true that one of the requirements to apply

to the Collector under Section 28-A of the Act is to

make an application within three months from the

date of the award passed in other cases.

14) In this case, three months have already

expired and the appellants were not able to make

the application within three months or thereafter till

date. However, having regard to the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case wherein we find that

firstly, the bread earner of the appellants’ family

namely Jugal Kishore died during the pendency of

the proceedings before the Collector long back;

secondly, one of the appellants also expired during

pendency of this appeal as reported; and thirdly, all

the appellants are illiterates and unaware of the

proceedings in question for years even after passing

of the award and are also unaware of the legal and

8 procedural requirements prescribed in the Act. It is

due to these reasons, we are of the view that the

appellants are entitled for indulgence.

15) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are

of the view that this is a fit case to allow the

appellants to make an application to the concerned

Collector under Section 28-A of the Act within three

months from the date of receipt of this judgment i.e.

on or before 17.12.2017 praying therein for

payment of compensation to them in the light of the

enhanced compensation, if already found awarded

to other landowners in these very acquisition

proceedings by the reference Court.

16) This indulgence to apply under Section 28-A of

the Act is granted to the appellants by this Court in

exercise of our powers conferred under Article 142

of the Constitution which we do with a view to do

complete and substantial justice to the appellants.

9

17) Let the Collector entertain the application, if

made by the appellants within three months from

the date of the order under Section 28-A of the Act

and hold an inquiry as contemplated under Section

28-A of the Act for determining the compensation, if

found payable to the appellants under the Act.

However, the appellants would not in such a case be

entitled to claim any interest of any nature due to

delay on their part. The Collector shall decide the

application once made by the appellants within

three months and release the payment of

compensation as directed hereinabove in favour of

appellants after making proper verification about

their family relations with the original claimant etc.

18) With these directions, the appeal stands

disposed of finally with no order as cost.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

10 New Delhi;

August 17, 2017

11