Sh. Hardwari Lal Rana & Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6738 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: December 12, 2014

+     RSA 242/2014 & C.M. No.15178-79/2014
      SH. HARDWARI LAL RANA & ORS.            ..... Appellants
                   Through: Mr. H.C. Mittal & Mr. Amit
                            Kumar, Advocates

                         versus

      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Z.H. Zafri, Advocates

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Both the courts below have dismissed appellants/plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant- Delhi Development Authority (henceforth referred to as the 'DDA') from taking possession of the suit land as described in the plaint as well as in the impugned judgment.

The factual background of this case stands noted in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. It would suffice to note that in the year 1992, the suit land was acquired vide Award No. 8/1991-92 and as per respondent-DDA, the possession of land in question was taken in the year 2004. While relying upon deposition of the revenue official (PW-3), the finding returned by the courts below is that Khasra No. 51/2 was acquired vide aforesaid Award.

At the hearing, learned counsel for appellants had submitted that

RSA No.242/2014 Page 1 the findings returned by both the courts below are without any evidence. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that one bigha land of Khasra No. 51/2 was never notified under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act and in the Award in question, Khasra No. 51/2 nowhere finds mention.

Learned counsel for appellant had drawn attention of this Court to Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to submit that the possession of land in question was never taken nor any compensation was paid and so, appellant is entitled to the benefit of aforesaid provisions of law. It was submitted that in the application for amendment, relief under the aforesaid enactment is sought and so, appellants' application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed.

To seek amendment of the plaint, learned counsel for appellant relied upon decisions in Mukand Lal & anr. Vs. Khusal Singh & ors. (Vol.XCIV-1988-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 171 and Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & ors. Vs. Nagesh Sidappa Navalgund & ors. AIR 2008 SC 901.

Learned counsel for respondent disputed the aforesaid stand taken by appellant and submitted that Khasra No. 51 finds mention in the Award and it includes Khasra No. 51/2 as well and supports the impugned judgment by pointing out that name of Mr. Nawal Singh-father of appellants is shown in the Award as one of the claimants.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I find that though in the Award, Khasra No. 51 only is mentioned but in

RSA No.242/2014 Page 2 view of evidence of the revenue official (PW-3), it becomes evidently clear that Khasra No. 51 was divided into three parts, which includes Khasra No. 51/2 as well. Apart from this, name of Sh. Nawal Singh, who is father of appellants, finds mention in the Award as one of the claimants. Decisions relied upon are of no avail to the case of appellants as question of amendment of plaint would arise only if any perversity is shown in the concurrent findings returned in the judgment of courts below. Amendment in the plaint to seek relief under Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is misplaced because the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are not perverse. There is no substance in the application seeking amendment of the plaint and the second appeal as well. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal Consequentially, finding no merit in this appeal and application seeking amendment of the plaint, the appeal and applications are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
DECEMBER 12, 2014
r




RSA No.242/2014                                                     Page 3