Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ.
Deepjot Singh Anand - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
LPA 543 of 2019 & CM Appls. 32791 of 2019, 32793 of 2019
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars further appeals against judgments of Single Judges, limiting appeals to enhance judicial efficiency.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 and Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure - Appeal against the order of learned Additional District Judge regarding compensation of acquired land - The appeal was rejected as being not maintainable post the introduction of Section 100A. (Paras 9-18)
(B) Maintainability of Appeals - Second appeal under Letters Patent is not maintainable in view of statutory bar introduced by Section 100A. (Paras 10-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the delay in compensation disbursement for land acquired by the Union of India, where despite several requests, compensation was released significantly later, leading to an appeal for enhancement and interest due. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was rejected based on Section 100A of CPC, indicating no further appeal against a Single Judge’s order is maintainable, regardless of prior case law. (Paras 10-18)
Issues: Whether the second appeal is maintainable in light of Section 100A of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The introduction of Section 100A bars maintainability of further appeals from judgments of Single Judges, affirming the statutory intent to limit appeal processes. (Paras 15-18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of land acquisition and compensation dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's challenge to lower court's decision (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. discussion on maintainability of appeal under cpc section 100a (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. final decision on maintainability of the appeal (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.05.2019 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge in L.A. APP.179/2016 captioned Deepjot Singh v Union of India & Anr.. The said appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a reference made at the instance of the appellant, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter `the Act') being LAC No.8/10/01 captioned Deepot Singh v. Union of India.
2. The Government of NCT of Delhi had acquired the land admeasuring 156 bigha 15 biswas in Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter `the Act') in respect of the said acquisition was issued on 12.08.1997. This was followed by a notification dated 10.09.1997 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award (Award No.3/DCW/98-99) dated 15.09.1998 under Section 11 of the Act, determining the value of land at Rs.8,80,000/- per acre (Rs.1,83,333/- per bigha). The appellant's land admeasuring 25 bigha and 13 biswas was also included in the land so acquired. The possession of the petitioner's land was taken on 13.11.1997.
3. The Collector assessed the total value of the appellant's land at Rs.72,51,223.77/- and issued a notice calling upon the appellant to appear before the concerned officer on 03.11.1998. Apparently, the appellant did not appear before the concerned officer on that date. However, he appeared before the concerned officer on 09.11.1988 as well as on 10.11.1998, and sought release of the admitted amount of compensation. The appellant also claims that he sent several letters to the respondents seeking payment of admitted amount of compensation.
4. Since the compensation as admittedly due was not released, the appellant filed a petition (CWP No.5463/99) before this Court on 25.08.1999, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to release the admitted amount. The respondents filed the counter-affidavit claiming that the appellant had not appeared before the concerned officer and had also not filed the necessary documents. According to the respondents, the appellant was also responsible for the delay in disbursement of the compensation.
5. The compensation was finally paid to the appellant on 20.02.2002. According to the appellant, there was an inordinate delay in disbursing the compensation and he is entitled to interest for the said delay. The appellant was also aggrieved with the value of the land as determined.
6. The appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act (LAC No.8/10/01). The said reference was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, by an order dated 10.05.2016. In terms of the said order, the compensation awarded to the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.2,35,815/- per bigha for `A' category land and Rs.1,90,156/- for `B' category land. In addition, the court also held that the appellant was entitled to an additional amount at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the notification till the date of the Award (that is from 12.08.1997 to 15.09.1998). The court also directed that the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% annum for the first year from the date of taking possession of land in question and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years until the entire payment of compensation was made. However, the appellant was entitled to interest after 18.02.2010 as the petitioner had failed to lead evidence.
7. The appellant appealed the said decision to this Court (
