Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (erst While Slum And Jj Department, Mcd) – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 1304 of 2023 & CM APPL. 41763 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Mr. Naveen Kumar Raheja, Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Jha, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Maggo, Law Officer and Mr. Pranav Sinha, LA, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel for L&B/LAC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. R. Violet Tigga and Ms. Nidhi Thakur, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.
Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Nihal Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent-3.
Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate (Through VC), for the Respondent-1.
The decree holder is entitled to receive the amount, and the court has the authority to grant time for the deposit of the decretal amount and stay the operation of previous orders, subject to compliance with the undertaking given by the petitioner.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Execution Civil No. 340/2020 - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Article 227 of Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders passed by the ADJ-1, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Execution Civil No. 340/2020, which emanate from a decree dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 616A/2008. The petitioner was arrayed as Respondent No.3 in the reference made by Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree holder is entitled to receive the amount, and the impugned orders directing steps for enforcing the decree do not require interference. The court granted time to the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount and stayed the operation of the previous orders until the specified date, subject to compliance with the undertaking given by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues raised by the petitioner included flouting of statutory guidelines, failure to raise demand of enhanced compensation within the stipulated time, liability for interest on enhanced compensation, and apportionment of liability of interest between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree holder is entitled to receive the amount, and the impugned orders directing steps for enforcing the decree do not require interference. The court also left open the petitioner's issues/contentions regarding apportionment of liability of interest and directed the Executing Court to decide the said issue.
Final Decision: The present petition stands disposed of, and pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPLs. 41761/2023, 41762/2023 (For Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 1304/2023 & CM APPL. 41763/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 27.07.2023 and 05.08.2023 passed by the ADJ-1, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Executing Court') in Execution Civil No. 340/2020. The said execution proceedings emanate from the decree dated 19.08.2009 passed by Reference Court in LAC No. 616A/2008.
1.1. The Petitioner herein was arrayed as Respondent No.3 in the reference made by Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and is the beneficiary and the party in possession of the acquired land. Respondent No. 2 herein acquired the land and was impleaded as Respondent No. 1 in the said reference.
1.2. The order passed by the Reference Court on 19.08.2009 has admittedly become final between the parties.
2. It is admitted that a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- approximately has been paid by Petitioner herein to Respondent No. 2 on 09.03.2022. The said amount has been deposited by Respondent No. 2 in the Executing Court on 05.08.2023 albeit belatedly.
2.1. There is an admitted shortfall in the decretal amount. As per the Respondent No. 1, the shortfall is to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and as per the Respondent No. 2 the shortfall is to the tune of about Rs.54,00,000/- as only.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner states on instructions of Mr. Vijay Maggo, Law Officer, Director Land that the Petitioner will deposit the deficit amount of the decretal amount due and payable up to 31.08.2023 with the Executing Court on or before 01.09.2023 through a bank instrument duly drawn in the favour of the Reference Court.
3.1. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 states that Respondent No. 2 will duly communicate to the Petitioner the calculation of the outstanding amount payable up to 31.08.2023 on or before 22.08.2023, to enable it to comply with the aforesaid undertaking.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said deposit of balance decretal amount is however, being made without prejudice to the pleas specifically raised at Grounds `B', `D' `F', `G' and `H' of this petition, which reads as under:
"B. Because the Executing Court has failed to appreciate that the LAC has flouted the statutory guidelines issued by notification bearing No. F.1/26/88/L&B/WC, dated 12.05.2006, by the Land & Building Department to streamline the acquisition proceedings and the action required to be taken in a time bound manner to avoid any harassment to land owners regarding payment of compensation etc.
XXX XXX XXX
D. Because the LAC has failed to raise the demand of the enhanced compensation amount within 30 days to the Land & Building Department/Requisitioning Department. As per the said standing instruction, in respect of payment of enhanced compensation, it was mandated that if the legal cell gives an opinion that there is no need to file the RFA against the enhancement given by the Ld. ADJ, then the LAC will send the demand of the enhanced compensation amount within 30 days to the Land & Building Department/Requisitioning Department.
XXX XXX XXX
F. Because the Executing Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner cannot be fastened with liability to pay interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of the order of the Reference Court, as the delay has been caused by the LAC in raising timely demand for enhanced compensation within 30 days of the order of the Reference Court.
G. Because the Executing Court failed to appreciate that no explanation was forthcoming at the end of the LAC qua the delay in raising the demand within the stipulated time as per the extant standing instructions.
H. Because the Executing Court has failed to appreciate that the amount due and payable to the Decree Holder on account of
