WP(C) 5663/2006 Page 1 of 4 * 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 2 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 3 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 4 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