Delhi Development Authority vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 1153 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Judgment delivered on: 02.03.2010


+     W.P.(C) 5663/2006

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                 ..... Petitioner
             Through: Ms. Sangita Chandra, Advocate

                        -versus-


LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS            ..... Respondents
             Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 to
                      3.
                      None for R-4/UOI.
                      Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Advocate for R-5
                      to 28.
                      Mr. S.K Rout with Mr. M.K. Pradhan,
                      Advocates for R-29 & 30.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment? Yes

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J (ORAL)

      Delhi Development Authority, petitioner herein, has filed the

present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking to impugn the award no.28/2005-06 dated 26.08.2005

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the

said Act) in respect of 4 biswas of land of Khasra no.116/93/1/1/1

min. in village Yusuf Sarai, Delhi.

      The short legal question raised in the present petition by the

DDA is that though they were aware of the proceedings, no notice


WP(C) 5663/2006                                          Page 1 of 4
 had been issued under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 at which stage the petitioner would have had an opportunity

to lead their evidence. The said provision reads as under:-

      "50(2)      In any proceeding held before a Collector or
      Court in such cases the local authority or company
      concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the
      purpose of determining the amount of compensation:
            Provided that no such local authority or company
      shall be entitled to demand a reference under section
      18."


      It is undisputed that the beneficiary of the acquisition is the

DDA. The petitioner was apparently aware of the proceedings but

no notice under Section 50(2) of the said Act was issued to the

petitioner. The stand of the contesting respondents no.29 & 30, as

set out in para 10 is as under:-

      "The petitioners cannot be allowed to plead as they
      have not been served with the formal notice under
      Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the
      Award is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is fully
      aware of each and every aspect of the proceedings as
      he was in constant touch with the Land Acquisition
      Collector."


      The LAC has not filed any affidavit and learned counsel for the

LAC states that he had perused the record and no notice had been

sent under Section 50(2) of the said Act as at that stage of time

such notices were not being sent, even though the legal position

was to the contrary but they are better advised now.

      The matter is no more res integra in view of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Agra Development Authority v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer and others, AIR 2001 SC 992, and the relevant

portion reads as under:-



WP(C) 5663/2006                                         Page 2 of 4
       "5A- It is next urged that the appellant were not given
      any opportunity to adduce evidence in the proceedings
      before the Collector for fixation of the cost of
      acquisition. It was fairly admitted that the appellants
      were aware of the proceedings. However, no notice had
      been issued to them and they had not been given any
      opportunity to adduce evidence for purposes of
      determining the amount of compensation.

      6.     To this submission no adequate answer could be
      given by the respondents. All that was submitted what
      that the appellants were aware of the proceedings and
      had held meetings with the Government and the
      Collector. In our view this is not sufficient. What is
      required by Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is that
      the body for whom the property is being acquired is
      given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence for
      the purposes of determining the amount of
      compensation. Nothing could be shown to us that this
      had been done. On this point the matter requires to be
      sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for
      refixing compensation payable."


      Learned counsel for respondents no.29 and 30 seek to refer to

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Delhi

Development Authority v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors, 130

(2006) DLT 1 (DB).     The judgment, however, is against the said

respondents since it notices the past history of that case which is as

under:-

      "In the course of the award proceedings no intimation or
      notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner-
      authority although it was entitled to the same in its
      capacity as the beneficiary of the acquisition. The award
      made by the Collector was on that ground challenged by
      the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3140/2000, before this
      Court, which petition was allowed and the matter
      remanded back to the Collector for re-determination of
      the compensation. Relying upon the decision of the
      Supreme Court in Agra Development Authority v. Special
      Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 646, this
      Court held that the requirement of Section 50 of the
      Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with in as
      much as no notice had been issued to the beneficiary of
      the acquisition before determining the amount of



WP(C) 5663/2006                                          Page 3 of 4
       compensation held payable to the expropriated land
      owners."


      Respondents no.5 to 28 have not even cared to file any

counter-affidavit despite opportunities granted.

      Thus, it is obvious that mere knowledge of the proceedings

would not suffice and a specific notice must emanate from the LAC

to the beneficiary in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the

Supreme Court in Agra Development Authority's case (supra).

      The result of the aforesaid is that the petition succeeds and

the impugned award is set aside with a direction to the LAC to

proceed in accordance with law. This would necessitate a notice to

be issued to the petitioner under Section 50 of the said Act.

      The parties to appear before the LAC on 29.03.2010.

      The matter being quite old and the award being set aside on a

technical ground, the LAC should take this matter on priority and

ensure that a fresh award is passed not later than four months from

the date of hearing fixed before the LAC. Since the date has already

been fixed, the parties to appear before the LAC on the said date

without the requirement of further notice.

      The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.



                                   SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J. MARCH 2, 2010 srb