Case: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma by L.Rs. and Ors

2. Since the DDA was neither made a party to the proceedings held by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court nor it was given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the issue of determination of compensation and the High Court substantially increased market value of the acquired land without issuing notice to it, an application has been filed on behalf of the DDA for permission to file the special leave petitions. Another application has been filed for condonation of 372 days delay in filing the special leave petitions.3. The case of the DDA is that its functionaries came to know about the impugned judgment only in June, 1999 when letter dated 3.6.1999 sent by the Land Acquisition Collector for release of Rs.14,15,82,253/was received by the Member (Finance). According to the DDA, a clarification was sought from the Land Acquisition Collector on the issue of its liability to pay more than Rs.14 crores by pointing out that a portion of the acquired land was occupied by the Jal Board but without waiting for theal Magistrate, Kalkaji issued warrant dated 14.10.1999 for attachment of the bank account under Section 70 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 necessitating challenge to the direction given by the High Court for payment of enhanced compensation to the contesting respondents. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the delay was occasioned because after having learnt about the judgment of the High Court, the concerned functionaries of the DDA took some time to collect the papers relating to the acquisition and the special leave petitions were filed after obtaining opinion of theand the Solicitor General.4. In the counter affidavit filed by Shambhu Nath Sharma (respondent No. 2 in SLP(C) Nos. 22025 of 2001), reference has been made to orders dated 12.4.1999 and 13.10.1999 passed by this Court whereby SLP(C) CC No. 1608 of 1999Union of India and Another v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By L.Rs. and Another and Review Petition (C) No. 1359 of 1999 filed in SLP(C) CC No. 1608 of 1999 were dismissed and it has been pleaded that the DDA cannot now challenge the judgment of the High Court. Respondent No. 2 has also questioned the locus of the DDA by asserting that even though the acquired land has been placed at its disposal under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the 1957the ownership thereof has not been transferred and as per theown case, it is not obliged to pay compensation for the acquired land. In support of this assertion, respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the contents of para (ix) of Civil Writ Petition No. 6414 of 1999 filed by the DDA for quashing warrant of attachment dated 14.10.1999.5. Shri U.S. Jolly, Commissioner (Land Management) has filed rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the DDA. In paragraph 7(a) of his affidavit, Shri Jolly has categorically averred that the land was acquired by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi pursuant to requisition sent by the DDA vide D.O. No. F.14(36)/69/CRC/DD dated 18.1.1973, which was forwarded by the Land and Building Department of Delhi Administration to the Land Acquisition Collector (North) vide letter No.dated 17.6.1975. Copies of D.O. dated 18.1.1973 and letter dated 17.6.1975 have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit.6. One Jagdev Singh, son of Hari Chand claiming himself to be respondent No. 2 has filed counter affidavit dated 4.7.2002 and opposed the prayer of the DDA for condonation of delay by asserting that no explanation has been given for 150delay after the concerned authorities came to know about the impugned judgment.

Reasoning: 8. We are further of the view that delay in filing the special leave petitions deserves to be condoned because after having learnt about the impugned judgment, the concerned functionaries of the DDA took steps to collect the papers relating to the acquisition proceedings, sought opinion of theand the Solicitor General and then filed the special leave petitions. In the facts of this case, it is appropriate to invoke the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107  and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, III (1996) CLT 62 (SC)=(1996) 3 SCC 132 , for the purpose of condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the DDA for grant of permission to challenge the judgment of the High Court is allowed and delay in filing of the special leave petitions is condoned.In our view, proposition Nos. (iii) and (iv) extracted herein above are attracted in the present case because Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1608 of 1999 filed by the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector was summarily dismissed without going into the merits of thechallenge to the judgment of the High Court and no question of law was decided by this Court. That apart, this Court neither had the occasion nor did it decide the question whether the DDA, at whose instance the land was acquired as a part of the exercise undertaken for development of the area around Kalkaji temple, was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determination of the amount of compensation because no such plea was raised in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 1608/1999.Section 50(2) represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice. The object underlying this section is to afford an opportunity to the local authority or company to participate in the proceedings held before the Collector or the Court for determining the amount of compensation and to show that claim made by the land owner for payment of compensation is legally untenable or unjustified. This is possible only if the Collector or the concerned Court gives notice to the local authority or the concerned company. If notice is not given, the local authority or the company cannot avail the opportunity envisaged in Section 50(2) to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Therefore, even though the plain language of that section does not, in terms, cast a duty on the Collector or the Court to issue notice to the local authority or the company to appear and adduce evidence, the said requirement has to be read as implicit in the provision, else the same will become illusory.In view of the above discussion, we holdthe DDA falls within the definition of the expressionson 3(aa)] andon 3(b)] of the Act;(ii) the DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector;(iii) the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him;(iv) the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;(v) the Division Bench of the High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation.