Inder Sain Chadha And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 398 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

(1) This writ petitioner was filed by Inder Sain Chadha and, his two sons, namely, Narinder Chadha and Naresh Chadha. During the pendency of the writ petition Inder Sain Chadha died. No application Was filed to bring his legal representatives on record. In any event of the matter his two sons are already the other petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 2nd August, 1983. The petitioners prayed for setting aside and quashing Notifications Nos.F.15(iii)/59-LSG dated 13th November, 1959 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and F.I(44)/62-L&H dated 29th November, 1962 under Section 6 of the Act and all the proceedings conducted by the respondents in pursuance of such notifications.

(2) The case of the petitioners was that pursuant to the Notification Under Sec.4 of the Act the land was acquired by the respondents on 13th November, 1959. With regard to the said land a notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the respondents on 22nd Novembers, 1962. The land in relation to which the said notifications were issued was situate at village Malik pur Chhawni, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi. The total area under acquisition was 19 bighas 12, biswas. A ward No. 1558 in relation to, the said acquisition was made on 5th April, 1963. The award was challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.298-D of 1963 by Inder Sain Chadha. This writ petition was, however, withdrawn by the petitioners on 17th November, 1971 as it appeared, on the representations of the petitioners, the respondents agreed to release certain portion of the land from acquisition.

(3) A notification was issued under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act on 4th December, 1971 by which 8 bighas 12 biswas of the land was released/withdrawn from the aforesaid acquisition. It is pertinent to mention that the land which was acquired by the respondents in the aforesaid village was having Khasra Nos.387 min, 388 min and 389 min. The land which was released by the respondents measuring 8 bighas 12 biswas was released from Khasra No.389 min.

(4) The petitioners had also in the meanwhile sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.

(5) The whole controversy, however, arose on account of the fact that the amount of Rs.l , was received from the Lac as compensation in respect of the total acquisition of the land measuring 19 bighas 12 bighas which was acquired under Award No. 1558. The petitioners applied for payment of whole of the amount knowing fully well that certain portion of the land had been released from acquisition. Inadvertently the then Additional District Judge vide his order dated 31st January, 1969 directed the entire to be paid to the petitioners. However, this amount was not paid as the Lac wrote area of 8 bighas 12 biswas out of the said land had since been released and fresh compensation in respect of the remaining land was to be made. In these of India moved the successor of the court and now Shri J.D. Jain, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances the learned Addl. District Judge ordered that the compensation received should be returned to the Lac who will reassess the compensation for the remaining land as per law. He further ordered that Lac must consider the desirability of giving a fresh award under the circmstances. It is the use of the word 'award' which has been taken advantage of by the petitioners has resulted in multifarious litigation in this Court and has delayed the taking over of the possession of the land in question by the respondents.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the order of the learned Addl. District Judge a fresh award was made by the respondents on 2nd August, 1983 which was supplementary Award No. 1558-A. The learned counsel has assailed the said award on the following grounds:-

(7) Firstly, according to him there was delay of 9 days in issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, he has argued that there was an inordinate delay in the acquisition proceedings. Thirdly, he has argued that the land shown in the Master Plan and Zonal Development plan of the area is ear-marked for industrial purposes and the petitioners would use the land for the said purpose. Fourthly, he has argued that the market value cannot be paid for the year 1959 pursuant to .the supplementary award No.1558-A which was made in 1983.

(8) He has also argued that since there is a delay interest under Sec.4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 has not been awarded. Therefore, Award No. 1558-A was incomplete award and on this ground alone the same should bequashed.

(9) However, all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by Shri O.N.Vohra learned counsel for D.D.A. According to him this Court will not go into all these submissions or arguments as award no. 1558-A was not an award within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act and in any case the learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to make such an observation in terms of the language of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has further contended that the learned Additional District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act has only jurisdiction over the matters as stated under Sections 18,31 and 32 of the said Act.

(10) The whole question is whether the award 1558-A is an award as contemplated under the Act. The whole problem has emerged from the expression of the word 'award' used by the learned Addl.District Judge in his order dated 22nd September, 1973. It is important to understand the scheme of Land Acquisition Act, Section 18 of which reads as under:- "(1)Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."

(11) What was required of from the learned Additional District Judge in terms of Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been stipulated therein. Learned Addl. District Judge had neither jurisdiction nor authority in law to step out and make any observation. regarding making of the award. Therefore, what the learned Addl. District Judge had meant by that order dated 22nd September, 1973 was that a fresh assessment of compensation for the remaining land be made as per law and the intend on of that order is further fortified by the award no.1558-A which is dated 2nd August, 1983 and the last paragraph itself records:-

Summary Of The Award N0.1558 Is Redrawn As UNDER;. Compensation for Kh.No.389 Min (11 -0) @ Rs.4000.00 per bigha Rs.44,000.00 Compensation for Khasra No.376 (21-17) @ Rs. 3500.00 per bigha Rs.76,475.00 Compensation for Khasra No.614/ 590/381 (6-02) @ Rs.4000.00 per bigha Rs. 24,400.00 Compensation for huts Rs. 228.00 15% solarium Rs. 21,765.00 Compensation for Trees Rs. 1,265.00 Compensation for Trees & Boundary wall of Khasra No-389 Min Rs. 2.000.00 -------------- Total: Rs.1.70.133.45 --------------

A sum of Rs.93,150.00 assessed for Kh.No.387,388 and389Minmeasuring 8 bighas 12 biswas which have been released may be sent to L&B department out of item no.3 of statement A of Award No.1558."

(12) It is abundantly clear that what was done by Award No. 1558-A or supplementary award was to reassess the compensation of 8 bighas 12 biswas of land which were released from the original acquisition of 19 bigha 12 biswas. The whole approach of the petitioners that it was a supplementary award is neither here nor there.

(13) Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any Notification under Sec.4, Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act or any enquiry conducted under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act before making the alleged supplementary award.

(14) Other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner will hold good only if there was any supplementary award. In our opinion there was no supplementary award.

(15) We would also like to note the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the original award 1558 by way of Cw 298-D of 1963 and it is important to note the prayer in the said writ petition which reads as under:- "ITis, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition initiated with the Notification under Section 4 No.F.4 (14)/61 L & H dated 19th November, 1962 published under Delhi Gazette and subsequent proceedings and the same be quashed and for a writ for prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further steps for the threatened acquisition of the land in question."

(16) The petitioners filed an application on 16th November, 1971 wherein they mentioned that during the pendency of the above said writ petition the petitioners have been submitting representations to the Delhi Administration for the release of the property of the petitioners in accordance with the policy of the Government not to acquire built up properties. They further stated in the said application that the Delhi Administration has been good enough to accept the request of the petitioners and have kindly agreed to release the major portion of the property including all the built up and the open area necessary, for the use to be kept open under the Building Bye Laws of the Mcd on the condition that the above mentioned writ petition is withdrawn by the petitioners from this Court. On these facts petitioners prayed that they be permitted to withdraw the writ petition without payment of any costs. The Division Bench of this Court on 17th November, 1971 recorded that for the reasons given in the application the writ petition is allowed to be with drawn and as such dismissed the same with no order as to costs. We fail to appreciate as to how another writ petition by the petitioners was filed in the year 1983 misrepresenting the fact that the same is on the basis of a different award. In this writ petition some interim orders were made restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner. The process of law has been misused by the petitioners. We may also note that the petitioners did not even stop at that and made unauthorised construction on the land which had been acquired to their knowledge and then even sold to third persons various portions of the acquired land.

(17) As discussed above, the present petition was not only improper but was not maintainable in view of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition No.298-D of 1963. Petitioner took the advantage by filing the earlier writ petition representing to the Delhi Administration and got 8 bigha 12 biswas of land released and accepted the award of acquisition of its land of 19 bigha 12 biswas. After the respondents released 8 bigha 12 biswas of land and reassessed the compensation and notified it in the year 1983 the petitioner again challenged the acquisition of the same land which they had no right to do. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000.00 as costs to the respondents. Interim orders made earlier stand vacated