IMPORTANT POINT
DDA is covered under definition of ‘local authority’ and ‘person interested’ in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Acquisition at the instance of DDA – Opportunity not given by Collector or Reference Court – High Court not issuing notice – Asked to release 14 crores of rupees – Ample justification for maintaining SLP. (Para 7)
        (b) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Delay – Condonation – Delay plausibly explained – Delay condoned. (Para 8)
        (1987) 2 SCC 107; (1996) 3 SCC 132 – Relied upon
        (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Minor errors, omissions, and inconsistencies do not make the conduct of a party contumacious. (Para 19)
        (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11 – Res judicata – SLP dismissed summarily and without deciding any law – Moreover present issue was not raised in the said SLP – Would not operate as res judicata. (Para 21)
        (1977) 2 SCC 181; (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Distinguished
        (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3(aa) and 3(b) – Definition of the expressions “local authority” and “person interested” are inclusive and not exhaustive. (Para 23)
        1995 Supp (2) SCC 348; (2007) 4 SCC 685; (2007) 4 SCC 502; (2007) 5 SCC 281 – Relied upon
        (f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3(aa) – DDA is covered by the definition of the expression ‘local authority’. (Para 24)
        (g) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3(b) – Even though the plain language of section 50(2) does not, in terms, cast a duty on the Collector or the Court to issue notice to the local authority or the company to appear and adduce evidence, the said requirement has to be read as implicit in the provision – DDA is covered by the definition of ‘person interested’. (Paras 26 and 27)
        (1980) 3 SCC 223; (1994) 4 SCC 737; (1995) 1 SCC 221; (1995) 2 SCC 326; (2001) 2 SCC 646; (2002) 3 SCC 228; (2003) 7 SCC 693; (2004) 13 SCC 125 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        Whether the Delhi Development Authority at whose instance land of the respondents and others situated at Village Bahapur was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release Rs.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 (for short, `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 in these appeals.
       Finding of the Court:
        DDA is covered under definition of ‘local authority’ and ‘person interested’ in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Whether the Delhi Development Authority (for short, ‘the DDA’), at whose instance land of the respondents and others situated at Village Bahapur was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release Rs.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 (for short, ‘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 Rs.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.

2. Since the DDA was neither made a party to the proceedings held by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court nor it was given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the issue of determination of compensation and the High Court substantially increased market value of the acquired land without issuing notice to it, an application has been filed on behalf of the DDA for permission to file the special leave petitions. Another application has been filed for condonation of 372 days delay in filing the special leave petitions.

3. The case of the DDA is that its functionaries came to know about the impugned judgment only in June, 1999 when letter dated 3.6.1999 sent by the Land Acquisition Collector for release of Rs.14,15,82,253/- was received by the Member (Finance). According to the DDA, a clarification was sought from the Land Acquisition Collector on the issue of its liability to pay more than Rs.14 crores by pointing out that a portion of the acquired land was occupied by the Jal Board but without waiting for the latter’s response, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalkaji issued warrant dated 14.10.1999 for attachment of the bank account under Section 70 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 necessitating challenge to the direction given by the High Court for payment of enhanced compensation to the contesting respondents. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the delay was occasioned because after having learnt about the judgment of the High Court, the concerned functionaries of the DDA took some time to collect the papers relating to the acquisition and the special leave petitions were filed after obtaining opinion of the Advocate-on-Record and the Solicitor General.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by Shambhu Nath Sharma (respondent No.2 in SLP(C) Nos.22025 of 2001), reference has been made to orders dated 12.4.1999 and 13.10.1999 passed by this Court whereby SLP(C) CC No.1608 of 1999 - Union of India and another v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By L.Rs. and another and Review Petition (C) No.1359 of 1999 filed in SLP(C) CC No.1608 of 1999 were dismissed and it has been pleaded that the DDA cannot now challenge the judgment of the High Court. Respondent No.2 has also questioned the locus of the DDA by asserting that even though the acquired land has been placed at its disposal under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the 1957 Act’), the ownership thereof has not been transferred and as per the DDA’s own case, it is not obliged to pay compensation for the acquired land. In support of this assertion, respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the contents of para (ix) of Civil Writ Petition No.6414 of 1999 filed by the DDA for quashing warrant of attachment dated 14.10.1999.

5. Shri U.S. Jolly, Commissioner (Land Management) has filed rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the DDA. In paragraph 7(a) of his affidavit, Shri Jolly has categorically averred that the land was acquired by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi pursuant to requisition sent by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 1191

IMPORTANT POINT DDA is covered under definition of ‘local authority’ and ‘person interested’ in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINT
DDA is covered under definition of ‘local authority’ and ‘person interested’ in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.