The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deepjot Singh Anand vs Union of India & Anr. consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that since the purpose of enacting Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) was to curtail the number of appeals, a second appeal under letters patent filed any time after the 2002 Amendment inserting Section 100A would not be available.
Facts:
The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired the land admeasuring 156 bighas 15, Biswas, in Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The appellant’s land admeasuring 25 bighas and 13 Biswas was also included in the land so acquired. The possession of the petitioner’s land was taken on 13.11.1997. The Collector assessed the total value of the appellant’s land at ₹72,51,223.77/- and issued a notice calling upon the appellant to appear before the concerned officer on 03.11.1998. But the appellant appeared before the concerned officer on 09.11.1988 as well as on 10.11.1998 and sought the release of the admitted amount of compensation. The appellant also claimed that he sent several letters to the respondents seeking payment of the admitted amount of compensation.
Procedural History:
Since the compensation was not released, the appellant filed a petition before this Court praying that the respondents be directed to release the admitted amount. As per the respondents, the appellant was also responsible for the delay in the disbursement of the compensation. The compensation was finally paid to the appellant on 20.02.2002. The appellant was aggrieved with the inordinate delay in disbursing the compensation and value of the land as determined.
The appellant filed a reference u/s 18 of the Act, which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge. In terms of the said order, the compensation awarded to the petitioner was enhanced. 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 (from 12.08.1997 to 15.09.1998). The court also directed that the appellant would be entitled to interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and at 15% per annum for the subsequent years until the entire payment was made. However, the appellant was entitled to interest after 18.02.2010 as the petitioner failed to lead evidence. The appellant appealed the said decision to this Court, which was rejected by the impugned order. The appellant filed the second appeal impugning the said decision.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that the principal question to be addressed was whether the said appeal was maintainable in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
It noted that the CPC was amended with effect from 01.07.2002 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, and Section 100A was introduced in the statute. Section 100A of the CPC introduced a statutory bar of an appeal from a judgment or a decree of a Single Judge of the court deciding an appeal from an original or an appellate decree. It includes a non-obstante clause, which expressly provides that this provision overrides the provisions of any letters patent appeal for any High Court or any other instrument having the force of law.
Reliance was placed on Mohd. Saud and Anr. v. Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz, wherein the Supreme Court had considered the question regarding the maintainability of a letters patent appeal. The court adopted the cannon of purposive interpretation and held that since the purpose of enacting Section 100A was to curtail the number of appeals, a second appeal under letters patent would not be available.
The decision of the Court:
Given the aforesaid decision, the question of whether a second intra- court appeal is maintainable was no longer res integra. The present appeal was not maintainable and the same was, accordingly, rejected.
Case: Deepjot Singh Anand vs Union of India & Anr.
Coram: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case No: LPA 543/2019 & CM APPLs. 32791/2019, 32793/2019, decided on 22nd December 2022
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh K Mehta.
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. K. Keran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S Akhtar, Mr. Rini V. Tigga, Advocates for R1 (UOI). Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD along with Ms. Ayushi Bansal and Mr. Sanyam Suri, Advocates for R2 (DOE).
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
