The Court emphasized the importance of considering the right to sue against the remaining respondents and holding an enquiry to determine the consequences of not bringing the legal representatives of some of the respondents who died during the pendency of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.280 of 2001 and the subsequent order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the High Court in R.P. No.314 of 2008 in the very same RFA No.280 of 2001, the original appellant before the High Court – Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’ for short) has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

The two plaintiffs, namely, Shri Diwan Chand Anand and Smt. Chanan Kanta Anand claiming to be the co-owners of the suit property filed the suit before the Civil Court/learned Trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the plaint defendant nos. 8 to 39 were impleaded alleging to be co-shares as proper parties to the suit. The original plaintiff no.2, Smt. Chanan Kanta Anand, was the wife of original defendant no.8 – Shri Dharam Chand Anand. On the demise of the husband and wife (original plaintiff no. 2 & defendant no. 8) their children were substituted both as plaintiff nos. 2(i) to 2(x) and defendant nos. 8(i) to 8(x). The suit was contested by the original defendant nos. 1 to 5 and 7 including the appellant DDA. They filed the written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction with respect to a challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Other defendant nos. 8 to 39 did not file any written statement and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.1983 and 06.10.1983.

2.1 The learned Trial Court initially framed four issues as under:

“Whether the notification dated 16.01.1969 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land in dispute is illegal due to non-satisfaction of the appropriate authority as to the existences of the public purpose? OPP

2. Whether the defendants withdrew from the acquisition proceedings? OPP

3. What is the effect of Letter dated 10.01.1967 and February, 1968 filed as Annexure D and G to the Plaint? OPP.

4. Relief”

2.2 That thereafter one additional preliminary issue was framed on 12.12.1995 as under:

“Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the validity of the notification under Section 4 and 6 under Land Acquisition Act?”

2.3 By judgment and decree dated 12.01.2000, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit. It is the case on behalf of the appellant – DDA that despite the learned Trial Court giving a finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity and legality of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, it decreed the suit and held that the notifications in question ceased to exist although the notification under Section 48 of the Act had not been issued. The contesting defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs and other co-owners land so notified for acquisition.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the learned Trial Court, DDA preferred the appeal before the High Court being RFA No.280 of 2001. The original plaintiff no.1 was arrayed as Respondent No.38 whereas LRs of plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.8 were arrayed as Respondent no.39 (2 – 10), and other defendants 939 were arrayed as Respondent nos. 737 in the appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing. The original plaintiff/respondent nos. 38 & 39 were represented by counsel. That some of the respondents (original defendants) out of respondent nos. 7 to 37 (out of original defendant nos. 9 to 39) were not served as some of them had died. By order dated 09.07.2007 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the entire appeal as having abated by observing as under :

"Many respondents have died during the pendency of the appeal but no steps have been taken by the appellant to bring their Legal Representatives on record