IMPORTANT POINT
Delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings
Is a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 54- Appeals against judgment of High Court whereby appeals preferred by two groups of persons under Section 54 of Act were allowed and market value of acquired land fixed by Reference Court was enhanced from Rs.102/- to Rs.7,390/- per square yard-Held that even though in terms of assignment deeds, S.S. Aggarwal and others became entitled to seek substitution before Land Acquisition Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced assignment deeds to show that landowners had transferred right to receive compensation- Hence held that they had done so deliberately and the only possible reason for this could be to avoid a proper scrutiny by Land Acquisition Collector and two judicial forums about their entitlement to receive compensation at a rate higher than Rs.58/- per square yard paid to landowners- Held just and proper to set aside impugned judgment and remit case to Reference Court for fresh determination of the amount of compensation payable to landowner and/or assignee after giving them reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases- High Court committed serious error by entertaining and allowing amendment application filed by S.S. Aggarwal and others- High Court first decided the appeals filed by assignees and then disposed off amendment application and that too without going through records- Another grave error committed by High Court in this regard was that it allowed amendment application without even adverting to the issue of unexplained delay of 4 and half years – Impugned judgment as also one passed by Reference Court set aside-Matter remitted to Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation payable to landowners and/or assignees-Appeals disposed off (Paras 14 to 19)
       Facts of the Case:
        Present Appeals have been filed against judgment of High Court whereby appeals preferred by two groups of persons under Section 54 of Act were allowed and market value of acquired land fixed by Reference Court was enhanced from Rs.102/- to Rs.7,390/- per square yard.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that even though in terms of assignment deeds, S.S. Aggarwal and others became entitled to seek substitution before Land Acquisition Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced assignment deeds to show that landowners had transferred right to receive compensation. Counsel appearing for assignees could not offer any tangible explanation as to why his clients chose to keep Land Acquisition Collector, Reference Court and High Court in dark about execution of assignment deeds by landowners. Hence held that they had done so deliberately and the only possible reason for this could be to avoid a proper scrutiny by Land Acquisition Collector and two judicial forums about their entitlement to receive compensation at a rate higher than Rs.58/- per square yard paid to landowners. If the assignment deeds had been produced before Land Acquisition Collector or Reference Court, either of them could have held an inquiry and given an opportunity to the landowners and/or assignees to explain the position. By withholding assignment deeds, assignees succeeded in avoiding proper scrutiny of their claim for compensation at the hands of the Land Acquisition Collector, Reference Court and High Court. Held just and proper to set aside impugned judgment and remit case to Reference Court for fresh determination of the amount of compensation payable to landowner and/or assignee after giving them reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases.
        It was further held that High Court committed serious error by entertaining and allowing amendment application filed by S.S. Aggarwal and others. High Court first decided the appeals filed by assignees and then disposed of amendment application and that too without going through records- If this was not so, there was no occasion for High Court to incorporate condition of making good deficiency in court fee. Another grave error committed by High Court in this regard was that it allowed amendment application without even adverting to the issue of unexplained delay of 4 and half years. Impugned judgment as also one passed by Reference Court was set aside. Matter was remitted to Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation payable to landowners and/or assignees. Appeals were disposed of

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 18056-18057 of 2003.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 21.2.2003 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeals preferred by two groups of persons i.e., S.S. Aggarwal and others and Om Prakash and others under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) were allowed and market value of the acquired land fixed by Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter described as, `the Reference Court’) was enhanced from Rs.102/- to Rs.7,390/- per square yard.

3. By notification dated 6.1.1995 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi proposed the acquisition of 27 bighas 5 biswas land situated at village Jasola. After 4 days, the declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act.

4. In response to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, the landowners filed three claim petitions through the same Advocate, namely, Ch. Sawrup Singh. One of the petitions was filed by Kishan Lal and 13 others. The other was filed by S.K. Sarogi and another and the third was filed by Mangla Ram and 3 others. They pleaded that keeping in view the prevailing market rates, they be paid compensation at least at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per square yard. In support of their claim, the landowners relied upon the allotments made by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, ‘the DDA’) at a concessional rate of Rs.2,200/- per square yard.

5. During the pendency of the matter before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, Mangla Ram and 3 others executed Assignment Deed dated 21.9.1995 in favour of Om Prakash, Phire Ram and Vinod Kumar (all sons of Ch. Swarup Singh, Advocate, who was representing the landowners before the Land Acquisition Collector). The relevant portions of the assignment deed are extracted below:

“WHEREAS, the Vendors are the actual owners of the Acquired Land Total Measuring 8 Bighas and 5 Biswas, in Khasra No. 133 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

That the above said land has been notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 6.1.1995, and declaration under Section 6 and notification under 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has also been issued on 10th Jan. 1993 but the compensation in respect of said land has not been passed by Govt. to the Vendors so far.

AND WHEREAS, the possession of the said land has also been taken by the Govt. on 22nd February, 1995.

AND WHEREAS, the Vendors have willingly agreed to sell transfer the said compensation right of the said land measuring 8 bighas 5 biswas, in Khasra No. 133, of village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, whatsoever to be settled by the Land Acquisition Collector in award or by the court in reference or in revisions or appeals of the same in High Courts with all rights to recover and receive the same from the concerned authorities/deptts. for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- [Rs. Four lacs and eighty thousand only] and the Vendees have agreed to purchase the same for said amount.

The entire consideration amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- [Rs Four lacs and eighty thousand only], has already been received in advance by the Vendors from the Vendees [the receipt whereof, the Vendors admit and acknowledge] in full and final settlement.

NOW THIS ASSIGMENT DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER:

1. That the Vendors do hereby sell, transfer, convey and assign the compensation rights, whatsoever to be settled by the Land Acquisition Collector inAward or by the courts in reference perceptions, revisions as sale etc. of the same to be filed in Delhi High Court and other higher courts with rights to receive and recover the same from the concerned authorities/Deptts. with each and every rights which vest in their names as towards the above said award of the Land Acquisition Collector and in reference, revisions, appeals etc. upto the Vendees.

2. That the Vendors admit that they have no r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2011 Supreme(SC) 725

IMPORTANT POINT Delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings Is a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings.

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings
Is a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings.