Important point
The award/decree appealed to High Court was not Joint but Joint and several, therefore, when five appellants died and there was belated attempt to bring their LR’s on record High Court ought to have condoned delay and should not have dismissed appeal in toto.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6, 11, 18, 30 and 31—C.P.C., 1908—Order 22 Rule 4—Regular First Appeal Nos. 309 and 310 of 1980 before High Court against decision of reference by ADJ—Out of 63 appellants, 5 dying on various dates—Belated attempt to bring on record their LR’s did not fructify—Delay not condoned—Appeals dismissed in toto-plea of partial abatement not accepted holding decree to be joint upon common right and interest—Appeal to Supreme Court—Case Law reviewed—Appeal allowed accordingly by remand to High Court to dispose of afresh.
       Held : In the light of the above discussion, we hold:-
       (1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them.
       (2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees.
       (3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one.
       (4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-a-vis the remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.
       The Award/decrees, which were the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court, in these cases, viewed in the light of the above conclusions, would not render them to be a joint and inseparable decree but in substance a mere combination of several decrees depending upon the number of claimants before the Court and, therefore, joint and several or separable vis-a-vis the individuals or their claims concerned. Consequently, even the abatement of the appeal in the High Court in respect of one or other of the appellants cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety or render it liable to be dismissed as not duly or properly constituted or not possible to be proceeded with. The conclusions to the contrary arrived at by the High Court and liable to be and are hereby set aside. That apart, since we have also arrived at a conclusion that the rejection of the applications by the High Court was erroneous, the orders passed by the High Court in this regard also are set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased appellants before the High Court are directed to be brought on record in the appeals before the High Court. (Paras 35 and 36)
       Held consequently : For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the decision or the manner of disposal given by the High Court in these cases, which resulted in grave injustice to the remaining appellants in denying them of their right to have an adjudication of their claims on merits. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay as prayed for, keeping in view the pendency of the main appeals on its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety. The judgment and decrees passed by the High Court in all these appeals are set aside and appeals are remitted to the High Court to be restored to their original files for being disposed of afresh on merits of the claims of both parties and in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed on the above terms, with no order as to costs. (Para 37)

Judgment

D. Raju, J.—Special leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11914-11915 of 1991.

2. On 14.8.2002, the Court allowed the applications filed in C.A. Nos. 1029 -1030 of 1992 and Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11914-11915 of 1991 for substitution and condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitution in respect of some of the respondents, who died during the pendency of these appeals. In the light of the above, all other applications filed for substitution and condonation of delay of one or the other parties in the above matters by the respective counsel for the appellants are also allowed. After the hearing was completed and orders have been reserved, it appears that the heirs of one Late Sultan Singh alias Ishwar Singh claiming to be interested in the compensation but admittedly was not a party (the late Sultan Singh himself) either before the Reference Court or the High Court, have filed applications to be impleaded as necessary parties. Since, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants was himself not a part at any stage of the proceedings before the Courts below, we see no justification to entertain their claim for coming on record at this stage of the proceedings. These unnumbered applications filed by Col. Mohinder Singh Malik and three others are, therefore, rejected. Having regard to the orders passed already, and the fact that the necessary legal representatives of all parties, who died during the pendency of the matters in this Court, have come on record, the benefit of the same will enure to the appellants in C.A.Nos.1027-1028 of 1992. The fact that the applications filed therein, earlier were not pressed and disposed of as such, will not come in the way of those appeals also being heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law, along with the other appeals.

3. An extent about 5500 bighas of land described as gain mumkin Pahar (uncultivable mountainous area) situated at Masudpur Village within the Union Territory of Delhi was acquired by the Government for planned development of Delhi. Notifications were issued - (1) on 24.10.1961 for acquisition of 720 bighas and 4 biswas out of 4307 bighas and 18 biswas under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It may be stated at this stage itself that an extent of 390 bighas of land notified on 24.10.1961 and acquired by passing the award in Award No. 1944 does not form the subject matter of these proceedings. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 6.8.1966. In the course of the Award enquiry claims were filed before the Land Acquisition Collector by three categories of claimants as hereunder: -

(i) Claims by the Union of India and Gaon Sabha that the lands acquired stood vested with the Gaon Sabha they being waste land under Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This claim proceeded on the basis that not only it was waste land but also the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundari was invalid and nonest in law.

(ii) The other class of claims were from the Proprietors/Co-owners, on the basis that the acquired land was not land as defined under Section 3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, since they were being used for non-agricultural purposes and therefore, they neither could be said to be waste land nor could be held to have vested in the Gaon Sabha, for either of them to claim any title to the lands in question and, therefore, they continued to be proprietors of the soil and as such entitled to the compensation for themselves; and

(iii) Yet another claim was from Smt. Gulab Sundari and her transferees of portions of the rights over the land on the ground that she was the Bhumidar of the land measuring about 4307 bighas and 18 biswas and those lands were part of her Bhumidari holding out which she also claimed to have transferred rights in an extent of 3500 bighas of undivided holding in favour of the other private respondents/claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1248

Important pointThe award/decree appealed to High Court was not Joint but Joint and several, therefore, when five appellants died and there was belated attempt to bring their LR’s on record High Court ought to have condoned delay and should not have dismissed appeal in toto.

Cases Referred (7)

Important point
The award/decree appealed to High Court was not Joint but Joint and several, therefore, when five appellants died and there was belated attempt to bring their LR’s on record High Court ought to have condoned delay and should not have dismissed appeal in toto.