Uoi vs Vijay Kumar Gupta
2010 Latest Caselaw 5595 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                   RFA NO. 937 OF 2003


+                                   Date of Decision: 8th December, 2010


#      UOI                                                   ...Appellant
!                        Through:           Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

                               Versus
$      VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA                                   ...Respondent
^                     Through:              None


      CORAM:
*     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1.   Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
     judgment? (No)
2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)


                         JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J (Oral):

This appeal was filed by Union of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation

through Evacuee Property Cell, Land & Building Department, Government

of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the judgment dated 3rd

March, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby

reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Sections 30-31 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of some land in village Kureni

was disposed of and the appellant was awarded only 15% of the

compensation amount while the respondent herein was awarded 85%.

2. The reference came be to made by the Land Acquisition Collector

after he had passed the award no. 4/95-96 and total compensation

amount in respect of the acquired land had been assessed at ` 7,07,750.

Since the said compensation amount was being claimed by the Custodian

under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

and Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 as the acquired land

was claimed to be an evacuee property, as well as the respondent herein,

the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference to the District Judge

under Sections 30 & 31 of the Act of 1894. The respondent had claimed

the compensation on the ground that he had become non-occupancy

tenant in respect of the acquired land because of his having been in

cultivatory possession uninterruptedly for many years before the issuance

of the notification under Section 4. While making the reference the Land

Acquisition Collector had in the memorandum of reference mentioned the

names of Central Government, the respondent as well as the name of the

allottee of the acquired land, namely, Asa Nand through Nanhey and

Lakhi, as the interested persons.

3. It appears from the Reference Court's record that on receipt of the

reference when the matter was taken up by the learned Additional District

Judge on the first date on 5th August, 1999 notice was ordered to be

issued only to the Central Government, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Jam

Nagar House, New Delhi since the respondent had appeared on his own

on that date through his counsel. Both these claimants had filed their

respective claims before the Reference Court and the Reference Court

framed the following issues for its decision:-

1. Whether the IP No. 2 was the non-occupancy tenant of the premises in question, if so, its effect?

2. To what amount each of the IPs is entitled to compensation for the acquired land?

3. Relief.

4. Vide impugned judgment the learned Reference Court held the

respondent herein to be a non-occupancy tenant in respect of the

acquired land entitled to 85% of the compensation and while the Central

Government was held entitled to remaining 15%. The Central Government

felt aggrieved by this apportionment of compensation and, therefore, filed

the present appeal.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition

Collector both Nanhey and Lakhi, whose names figured in the Reference

made by the Collector, died and after the Land Acquisition Collector

passed his award no. 4/95-96. Their sons made a petition under Section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement in compensation.

6. The sons of Nanhey and Lakhi had filed an application for their

impleadment in the appeal in which they had claimed that in response to

the notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act they had

submitted their respective claims and objections but on receipt of the

reference under Sections 30 and 31 the Reference Court did not send any

notice to them as interested persons and in the absence of any notice of

the reference having been given to them the reference came to be

disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment. It was also

claimed that that judgment had been obtained by the respondent herein

at their back by concealing and suppressing the material facts about their

entitlement in respect of the compensation of the acquired land. This

Court had vide order dated 31st October, 2007 allowed that application

and the applicants were permitted to be impleaded as respondents no. 2,

3 and 4 in the present appeal. While ordering their impleadment this

Court had observed that they had not only participated in the award

proceedings but had also got a reference made under Section 18 for

enhancement of compensation.

7. From the aforesaid narration of the factual background of the case

leading to the filing of the present appeal it becomes apparent that the

Reference Court had proceeded to dispose of the reference in the absence

of some of the interested persons whose names were mentioned by the

Land Acquisition Collector in the Reference and that appears to have

happened because on the first date itself when the reference was taken

up respondent no. 1 herein had appeared in the matter through counsel.

In my view, the Reference Court was not justified in deciding the question

of apportionment of compensation in the absence of all the interested

parties and therefore, on this short ground alone the impugned judgment

deserves to be set aside. This Court feels that in the facts and

circumstances narrated above, a re-trial is necessary by the Reference

Court after inviting claim from respondents 2 -4 herein and giving them

opportunity of adducing evidence. Ordered accordingly.

8. Since the impugned judgment is being set aside only on the ground

that it had been passed in the absence of some of the interested persons,

this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival claims of the parties

which were there before the Reference Court and their claim shall also be

re-determined by the Reference Court in accordance with law

uninfluenced by the passing of the present judgment of remand and they

shall also be entitled to adduce additional evidence, if they so desire. The

appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

9. The case shall now be taken up by the Reference Court on 12th

January, 2011. The trial Court record be sent back.

P.K. BHASIN,J

December 08, 2010/pg