Delhi High Court
Sh. Budh Ram Through Lrs vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 March, 2011
Author: S.L.Bhayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi
C.M.(M) No. 760/2010
Date of Decision:- 07.3.2011
Shri Budh Ram (Since Deceased) Through LR's ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Vashisht, counsel
for the petitioner.
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Amit
Mehra, counsel for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in
the Digest? Yes
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside
the order dated 10.2.2010, whereby the legal heirs of deceased
petitioner Budh Ram have been held as not entitled to statutory
interest from 2.5.1998 to 2.2.2007 on the ground that their
application for substitution was filed on 2.2.2007 while the
deceased died on 28.9.1993.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of this case are that a
petition was filed by the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of
deceased Shri Budh Ram who expired on 28.9.1993.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 1
3. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter
referred as "the Collector"), late Shri Budh Ram and his brother
filed a joint petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). After that Budh Ram has
passed away on 28.9.1993.
4. Thereafter, his legal heirs has filed an application for
bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased under Order
XXII Rule 2 and 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908, on 30.11.1993 before the Collector and was
received in the office of the Collector vide Diary No.3272 dated
2.12.1993. On the basis of the application filed by the LRs they
were given compensation by the Collector on 9.3.1994. The
reference petition under section 18 of the Act was sent to the
Reference Court on 2.5.1998 along with the statement of the
Collector under section 19 of the Act. However, the Collector did
not send the application under Order XXII Rule 2 and 3 and the
LRs of the deceased remained under impression that the LRs of
deceased had already been brought on record by the Collector
as the said application was moved within limitation period and
applicants had received balance payment of compensation
payable to their deceased father and as such there was no
necessity to file another application under Order XXII Rule 2 and
3 of CPC as the Collector had filed statement under section 19 of
the Act by mentioning the names of the applicants as LRs of
deceased Budh Ram.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the legal
heirs of the deceased petitioner had already filed their
substitution application before the Collector and the Collector
after recognizing them as persons interested has released the
compensation in favour of legal heirs as per the corrigendum. The
Collector has erroneously not forwarded the application for
substitution filed before him by the LRs of the deceased
petitioner.
6. Further he disputed that the Trial Judge has wrongly relied
on Dayanand Vs. Union of India, 2009(157)DLT 210.The said case
dealt with the issue as to whether the interested persons were
bound to file substitution application before the Collector . The
said judgment was no authority in law that no interest has to be
paid for the period during which the petition stood abated.
7. Further counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Union of
India Vs.Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., dated
19.9.1979, Delhi High Court, wherein the court has granted the
interest for the period where stay of the proceedings was
obtained by the land owners on the facts that the enhanced
compensation lay with the Government all the time and that the
possession of the land was also already obtained by the
Government and that the owner has not sought stay of
dispossession. The Court held that there was prejudice caused to
the Government. The court also held that the Courts only in most
exceptional circumstances should depart from the general rule of
granting statutory interest.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 3
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the Land Acquisition Act is an ex-proprietary legislation
compulsorily depriving the land owners of their property. The
only relief to the land owners is the compensation along with
statutory interests. The provisions as to substitution of the legal
representative are merely technical requirement for proper
prosecution of the reference petition.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that Shri Budh Ram expired on 28.9.1993. A reference
was sent to the reference court on2.5.1998 along with the
statement under section 19 of the Act wherein the fact of the
death of the petitioner was mentioned. The said reference was
disposed of on 15.3.2004wherein the claim made by Ram Mehar
was allowed and the claim of the deceased petitioner was abated
in the absence of the LRs having been brought on record despite
notice. It is clear from the reading of the impugned order that
despite notice, the LRs of Shri Budh Ram did not make any
application to the reference court as required under the law
which resulted in dismissal of the reference petition. The
dismissal was never challenged by the LRs of Late Shri Budh
Ram. However, on a challenge laid by the Union of India, the
judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to
the reference court for adjudication afresh vide order
dated24.5.2005 without noticing the fact that Shri Budh Ram had
already expired earlier and the reference stood abated.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 4
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that, the petitioner had moved an application on 2.2.2007 for
bringing on record the LRs of Late Shri Budh Ram along with an
application for condonation of delay and setting aside the order
of abatement.
11. Further it was asserted by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the reference court allowed the substitution of
the LRs belatedly, but declined to grant interest for the period of
delay, i.e., 29.9.1993 till 2.2.2007, when the application was
made. The Reference Court has relied upon Dayanand Vs. Union
of India, 2009(157) DLT 210.
12. Further learned counsel for the respondent has asserted
that despite service of notice to the LRs, they chose not to file
any application or to participate in the reference proceedings at
pre-remand stage. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon
Kanwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India,120(2005)DLT 348
(DB), wherein the High Court has declined interest for the period
where a party is found to be negligent in pursuing the
proceedings.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the record carefully. I find that the grievance of the
petitioner is that the Reference Court by its order dated
10.2.2010 has directed non-payment of interest on the enhanced
amount from the date of the receiving of the reference petition
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 5
dated 2.5.1998 to the date of filing of the substitution application
i.e.2.2.2007.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that the delay in filing the
application for setting aside the order of abatement be condoned
as the LRs had filed the required application under Order 22 Rule
3 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Collector and for the
failure of the Collector in not sending the said application along
with reference, the LRs of the deceased Budhram be not made to
suffer.
15. The Trial Court has rightly heard and decided the case of
the petitioner vide impugned judgment. The relevant para is
reproduced hereunder:-
"Resultantly, the application filed by LRs of Shri Budh
Ram for their substitution is allowed subject to a
condition that the LRs of Shri Budh Ram would get no
interest from 02.05.1998till 02.02.2007on the amount
of compensation awarded in this case. As the widow of
deceased and both his daughters have executed
relinquishment deed relinquishing their share in favour
of both sons of Shri Budh Ram in equal proportion, the
said four sons of Shri Budh Ram are substituted as LRs
of Shri Budh Ram."
16. The petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter. As
the wife of the deceased has received the Reference Court notice
on 02.06.1998, despite receipt of the notice they have not
approached the Reference Court for substitution. Para 4of the
judgment dated 15.3.2004 is reproduced below:-
"The court notice of present reference was sent to
the claimant. The court notice was received back
duly served to Smt. Chander wife of Sh. Budh Ram.
Neither Smt. Chander nor any other LRs of Sh. Budh
Ram filed any application for their substitution in
place of Budh Ram since the date of service of
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 6
court notice i.e. 02.06.1998 till date, so the claim of
Sh. Budh Ram stands abated."
17. Even after receipt of the court notice from the reference
court which was duly served on Smt. Chander wife of Sh. Budh
Ram the petitioner did not file any application for substitution
before the Reference Court and therefore, the claim of Budh Ram
was ordered to stand abated.
18. In view of the above stated discussion, the petitioners
cannot be granted the interest for the period of which they had
not approached the court for being substituted in place of Budh
Ram as their LRs.
19. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Trial
Court.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
S.L BHAYANA, J.
March 7th, 2011
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 7
