Delhi High Court
Delhi Agricultural Marketing ... vs Smt. Bhagwan Devi on 27 September, 2013
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.09.2013
+ FAO(OS) No.436/2013
DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD ..... Appellant
versus
SMT. BHAGWAN DEVI .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mrs Avnish Ahlawat with Mr Vibhav Misra
For the Respondent : Mr Swastik Singh.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM No.15232/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CAV 854/2013
The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The
caveat stands discharged.
FAO(OS) 436/2013 & CM No.15231/2013 (Stay)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2013
delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No.561/2007.
2. The said OMP had been filed by the appellant herein under Section
34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
'1996 Act') challenging the award dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned
Arbitrator (Late Hon'ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar).
3. As noted in paragraph 1.1 of the impugned judgment, the sole ground
on which the Arbitral award has been challenged by the appellant before
the learned Single Judge was the absence of permission accorded by the Lt.
Governor of Delhi, under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act') to withdraw the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the land in issue.
4. In order to examine this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to give
some relevant facts. 33 acres of land were notified for acquisition by a
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 30.10.1963. The said land
was situated in village Mamoorpur, Delhi. It included 6 bighas and 10
biswas of land, belonging to the respondent, situated in Khasra Nos.296,
298 and 303 at village Mamoorpur, Delhi. The Section 6 declaration was
notified on 10.01.1969 and the award was made on 19.09.1986. The
possession of the entire 33 acres of land including 6 bighas and 10 biswas
of land, which earlier belonged to the respondent was taken on 22.09.1986.
5. The respondent challenged the said acquisition in respect of her land
by filing a writ petition being CWP No.149/1987. She had also moved
representations before the appellants for returning the land to her. An out
of Court settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondent
and the same was reduced in writing in the form of a settlement agreement
dated 30.09.1988. The broad terms of the settlement were that the
appellant had agreed to return 3 bighas and 5 biswas of the land belonging
to the respondent and to retain the other portion (3 bighas and 5 biswas).
6. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that the question mentioned
above had been raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.
Section 48 of the 1894 Act reads as under:-
48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1)
Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government
shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land
of which possession has not been taken.
(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any
such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of
compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and
shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all
costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the
proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.
(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so
far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable
under this section."
7. It will be clear from Sub-section 1 of section 48 of the 1894 Act that
the Government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land
"of which possession has not been taken". In other words, the Government
can withdraw from the acquisition only in respect of land, possession of
which has not been taken by the Government. In cases where the
possession has been taken, Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act would have no
application. In the present case, possession of the land in question was
taken on 22.09.1986. Therefore, Section 48 of the 1894 Act would not
apply. That being the position, the appellant was competent to enter into a
settlement agreement with the respondent. That is precisely what the
learned Arbitrator has held in his award dated 10.07.2007 which has been
confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge on this aspect of the
matter is recorded in paragraph 15 of the impugned order, with which we
concur. The said paragraph 15 is as under:-
"15. A perusal of the stand taken by the Board before this
court in the aforesaid writ petition would clearly show that, it is
the Board's stand that the acquisition proceedings stand
concluded and that it had acquired legal title of the entire land,
which included the land in issue. Therefore, as rightly held by the
learned Arbitrator, the only entity which was competent to
execute the settlement agreement was the Board itself. Though,
there is no evidence led that there was an amorphous suggestion
made both before me and the Arbitrator that the settlement
agreement was executed by the then Chairman of the Board with
respondent no. 1 for oblique motives. This aspect has been dealt
with by the learned Arbitrator; I need not dwell on it once more,
except to say that admittedly, no evidence has been led before the
learned Arbitrator to establish the veracity of the said assertion.
The dates and events, as referred to hereinabove, belie such a
charge. Surmises and conjectures cannot supplant evidence."
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no case made out for any
interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal and the pending
applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2013/MK
