LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus S.S. AGGARWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 9 S.C.R. 756 .,..-. A DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY _,. v. S.S. AGGARWAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7301-7302 of 2003) B AUGUST 02, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 18 and 54 - Acquisition of land - Petitions by the landowners claiming compensation c at the prevailing market price - During pendency, execution of the assignment deeds by the landowners - Thereafter, award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector - Application u/s. 18 for re-fixation of market value of the acquired land by assignees - No inquiry on the issue of locus of assignees to ~ '- D claim compensation by the Collector and matter referred to "' the Reference Court - Reference Court also did not inquire about tile entitlement - Market value re-fixed - Appeal u/s. 54 by the assignees that they were entitled to enhanced compensation but limiting their clai1.1 due to paucity of funds E - After four and a half years of filing the appeals, petition for amendment of the memo of appeal by the assignees - Division Bench of the High Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land and also allowed the amendment ~ application - On appeal, held: Even though in terms of the ·" F assignment deeds, assignees became entitled to seek substitution before the Land Acquisition Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced the assignment deeds to show that the landowners had transferred the right to receive compensation - There was no G explanation for the same - High Court committed an error by entertaining and allowing the amendment application.filed by ,._ the assignees and that too without even adverting to the issue ~· of unexplained delay of four and a half years - High Court first decided the appeals filed by the assignees and then H 756 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 757 AGGARWAL & ORS . . ~ ..... disposed of the amendment application without going through A the records - As such, Union of India and DDA were deprived of an opportunity to make a request to the High Court to remit the case to the Reference Court - Matter remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the compensation .. payable to the landowners and/or assignees. B " Landowners were issued notices with regard to acquisition of their lands. They filed petitions claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per square yard. During pendency of the matter, the landowners executed c Assignment Deed in favour of assignees. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 98/- per square yard. t Thereafter, the assignees filed an application u/s. 18 of ;. the Act for re-fixation of market value of the acquired land. ii The Collector did not make any inquiry and referred the D matter to the court. The Reference Court also did not inquire about the entitlement and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Aggrieved, the assignees filed an application uls. 54 claiming that even though they were entitled to enhanced E compensation but due to paucity of funds they were limiting their claim to Rs. 3,000/- per square yard. After 'I_ four and a half years of filing the appeals, the assignees ). filed a petition for amendment of the memo of appeal so as to enable them to claim compensation at the rate of F Rs.7,000/- per square yard. The Division Bench enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 7,390/- per square yard as also allowed the application. Therefore, the instant cross appeals were filed. G J, Disposing of the appeals, the Court ~ HELD: 1.1 Even though in terms of the assignment deeds, respondent and others-assignees became entitled to seek substitution before the Land Acquisition Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. - A proceedings nor produced the assignment deeds to >r show that the landowners had transferred the right to receive compensation. [Para 14) [768-C-D] 1.2 The counsel appearing for the assignees could B not offer any tangible explanation as to why his clients • chose to keep the Land Acquisition Collector, the • Reference Court and the High Court in dark about the execution of the assignment deeds by the landowners. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that they had done c so deliberately and the only possible reaso
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.