NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10326-10327 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.22025-22026 of 2001)
Delhi Development Authority ...Appellant
Versus
Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) ... Respondents
by L.Rs. and others
With
Civil Appeal No.10328 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(C)No.22027 of 2001],
Civil Appeal Nos. 6564 of 2001 and 6565 of 2001.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether the Delhi Development Authority (for short, `the DDA’), at
whose instance land of the respondents and others situated at Village
Bahapur was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was
asked to release Rs.14,15,82,253/- for payment of compensation can be
treated as “person interested” within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the
2
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) and it was entitled to an
opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land
Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determining the
compensation is the question which arises for consideration in these
petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court whereby market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per
sq. yd. and direction was issued for payment of compensation to the
contesting respondents with 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest.
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
3
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 the latter’s response, Sub
Divisional 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 the Advocate-on-Record and 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 1999 – Union of India and another v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead)
4
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 1957 Act’), the
ownership thereof has not been transferred and as per the DDA’s own 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.F.9(39)/70-L7B dated
5
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 150 days’ delay after the concerned authorities came to
know about the impugned judgment.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the DDA’s locus
standi to challenge the judgment of the High Court. It is not in dispute that
proposal for acquisition of the land was initiated by the DDA vide D.O.
dated 18.1.1973. It is also not in dispute that neither the Land Acquisition
Collector nor the Reference Court gave opportunity to the DDA to adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The
High Court did not issue notice to the DDA apparently because it was not a
party to the proceedings held by the Land Acquisition Collector and the
Reference Court. Notwithstanding this, the DDA has been asked to release
Rs.14 crores and odd for payment of compensation to the respondents.
6
Therefore, there is ample justification for entertaining its prayer for grant of
permission to file the special leave petitions.
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
the Advocate-on-Record and 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 (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.
9. Leave granted.
10. By notification dated 30.6.1978 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act,
the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi proposed the acquisition of 70 bighas 13
7
biswas land situated at Village Bahapur including that of the contesting
respondents for a public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi.
After considering the objections filed by the land owners, the Lieutenant
Governor issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was
published in the official gazette dated 19.2.1979 for acquisition of 62 bighas
1 biswas land.
11. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 25.6.1979
whereby he divided the acquired land into three Blocks i.e. `A’, `B’, `C’ and
fixed market value thereof at the rate of Rs.84/- per sq. yd., Rs.63/- per sq.
yd. and Rs.42/- per sq. yd. respectively.
12. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector,
the respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for making
reference to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation.
Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the concerned Court. Vide
judgment dated 27.9.1980, the Reference Court disposed of L.A.C. No.2 of
1980 – Bhola Nath and another v. Union of India and held that the claimants
are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.175 per sq. yd. with 15 per cent
solatium and 6 per cent interest w.e.f. 30.6.1978. L.A.C. No.105 of 1984 –
8
Smt. Narbada Devi and others v. Union of India was disposed of by the
Reference Court vide judgment dated 14.5.1984 by dividing the land of the
claimants into two Blocks i.e. `B’ and `C’ and fixing market value of the two
blocks at Rs.129/- per sq. yd. and Rs.108/- per sq. yd. respectively.
13. The contesting respondents challenged the judgments of the Reference
Court in RFA Nos.65 of 1981 and 266 of 1984 and prayed for grant of
compensation at the rate of Rs.575/- per sq. yd. After 17 years of filing the
appeal, Bhola Nath and another sought leave of the court to amend the
memo of appeal so as to enable them to claim compensation at the rate of
Rs.3000/- per sq. yd. Similar prayer was made on behalf of Smt. Narbada
Devi and others by filing separate application sometime in 1996. The Land
Acquisition Collector opposed the prayer for amendment but the High Court
allowed the applications.
14. Thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of both the
appeals and held that the contesting respondents are entitled to enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per square yard with 15% solatium
and 6% interest from the date of dispossession.
9
15. Before proceeding further, we consider it proper to mention that the
Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector had unsuccessfully
challenged the impugned judgment inasmuch as S.L.P.(C) No.1608 of 1999
filed by them was dismissed by this Court on 12.4.1999 and Review Petition
No.1359 of 1999 was dismissed on 13.10.1999. For the sake of convenient
reference, the relevant portions of order dated 12.4.1999 are extracted
below.
“Delay condoned.
We asked learned counsel whether it was correct that
possession of the land had been taken in 1972. His reply
was that there was no evidence in support of this
statement in the judgment and order under appeal. We
asked him whether that had been taken as a ground in the
S.L.P. His answer was to refer to ground (L) which says,
“whether the High Court could grant interest to the
Respondents for 6 years prior to the issue of section 4
Notification? That is by no means an answer to the
question that we asked.
The special leave petition is dismissed.”
16. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. and another and Smt. Narbada
Devi and others also filed special leave petitions, which were registered as
S.L.P. (C) Nos.19729 of 1998 and 18433 of 1998. After issuing notice, the
Court granted leave in both the cases and the special leave petitions were
converted into Civil Appeal Nos.6564 and 6565 of 2001. After some time,
1
the respondents applied for and they were granted permission to withdraw
the appeals with the rider that the cross objections filed by the Union of
India and the Land Acquisition Collector shall remain pending.
17. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel argued that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the Land Acquisition
Collector and the Reference Court did not give opportunity to the DDA to
participate in the proceedings held before them for determining the amount
of compensation despite the fact that the land was acquired at its instance
and was transferred to it under Section 22(1) of the 1957 Act. Learned senior
counsel further argued that the DDA is covered by the definition of the
expression “person interested” and the Land Acquisition Collector and the
Reference Court committed grave illegality by fixing market value of the
acquired land and the amount of compensation payable to the respondents
without giving it an opportunity to adduce evidence in terms of the mandate
of Section 50(2). Shri Amarendra Sharan submitted that the Division Bench
of the High Court also committed serious error by directing payment of
compensation to the contesting respondents at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.
yd. without giving opportunity of hearing to the DDA and ignoring that it
will have to provide funds for payment of compensation to the land owners.
1
In support of this argument, Shri Amarendra Sharan relied upon the
judgments of this Court in Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely (1995) 1 SCC 221 and U.P. Awas
Eveam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995 (2) SCC 326. Learned senior
counsel then referred to the master plan of Delhi for 1961 and 2001 and the
map produced by him during the course of hearing to show that the acquired
land forms part of the Green Belt and argued that the High Court committed
serious error by ordering payment of enhanced compensation ignoring the
mandate of Section 24 of the Act, which debars the Court from taking into
consideration illegal use of the land while determining the amount of
compensation. Learned senior counsel emphasized that the Land Acquisition
Collector and the Reference Court had concurrently held that the acquired
land does not have commercial value and argued that the High Court
committed serious error by increasing market value thereof on the premise
that land in the surrounding areas has already been put to commercial use.
Shri Amarendra Sharan referred to judgment dated 18.7.1995 rendered by
the High Court in RFA No. 132 of 1980 whereby market value of the land
situated at Village Bahapur, which was acquired vide notification dated
30.11.1972 was fixed at Rs.65,000/- per bigha and argued that even if
principle of 12% increase per annum was applied for the purpose of
1
determining market value of the land in question, the High Court could not
have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq. yd.
18. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
argued that the appeals are liable to be dismissed because the DDA has not
approached the Court with clean hands. Learned counsel referred to
apparently contradictory statements made at pages `J’ and `L’ of the List of
Dates and contents of letters dated 30.6.1999 and 8.7.1999 sent by Director
(LM) (HQ), DDA to the Land Acquisition Collector/SDM on the issues of
payment of compensation and transfer of possession under Section 22(1) of
the 1957 Act and submitted that failure of the DDA to candidly disclose all
the facts should be treated as sufficient for non suiting it. Learned counsel
pointed out that even in para (B) of the grounds taken in Writ Petition
No.6414 of 1999 filed in the High Court for quashing the warrant of
attachment, the DDA has claimed that possession of the acquired land was
neither taken by the land acquisition authorities nor transferred to it and
argued that by filing these appeals, the DDA has made an unwarranted
attempt to deprive the land owners of their right to receive just and fair
compensation. Shri Mehta then argued that the DDA cannot challenge the
judgment of the High Court on the ground of denial of opportunity of
1
hearing because with the dismissal of SLP (C) CC No.1608 of 1999 jointly
filed by the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector, the same
will be deemed to have become final. Shri Mehta also relied upon the
judgments of this Court in N.P. Venkateswara Prabhu v. N.P. Krishna
Prabhu (1977) 2 SCC 181 and Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6
SCC 359 and argued that if these appeals are allowed, two inconsistent
decrees will come into existence and that is legally impermissible.
19. The argument of Shri Dhruv Mehta that the appellant-DDA should be
denied relief because it has made contradictory statements and has not
disclosed correct and full facts on the issues of initiation of acquisition
proceedings and transfer of possession of the acquired land does not merit
acceptance. A careful reading of the statements made at pages `J’ and `L’ of
the List of Dates and contents of letters dated 30.6.1999 and 8.7.1999
written by Director (LM) (HQ), DDA does not support the assertion of the
learned counsel that the appellant has made an attempt to mislead the Court.
The minor inconsistencies here and there appear to be due to lack of
coordination between various functionaries of the DDA, a phenomena not
unusual in the functioning of Government departments and the
agencies/instrumentalities of the State. However, such errors, omissions and
1
inconsistencies do not justify a conclusion that the DDA is guilty of
contumacious conduct.
20. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel that acceptance of
appellant’s prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment may lead to
passing of two inconsistent decrees and his argument that dismissal of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1608/1999 – Union of India and another v.
Bhola Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. and another operates as res judicata does
not commend acceptance for the simple reason that the special leave petition
filed by the Union of India and another was summarily dismissed and the
question whether the DDA at whose instance the land was acquired for
Planned Development of Delhi was entitled to notice and opportunity to
adduce evidence in the proceedings held before the Collector and the
Reference Court for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation
was neither raised in the S.L.P. (C) CC No.1608 of 1999 nor decided by this
Court. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (supra), a three-Judge Bench
considered the questions whether summary dismissal of the special leave
petition and that too without deciding any question of law operates as res
judicata qua the special leave petition filed by other party and the
judgment/order of the High Court merges in the order of this Court. After
1
examining various facets of the doctrines of res judicata and merger, the
Court laid down seven propositions including the following:
“(i) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the
Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto
the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The
second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is
granted and the special leave petition is converted into an
appeal.
(ii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or
unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of
jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or
subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be
determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior
jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or
affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of
the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or
affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while
exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the
discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave
to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to
the former and not to the latter.
(iii) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-
speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not
attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to
appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under
challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to
exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(iv) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e.,
gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has
two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the
order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other
than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are
the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind
the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in
any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial
1discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the
country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of
the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the
order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition
or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding
as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.”
21. 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 the petitioners’
challenge 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.
22. We may now consider the question framed in the opening paragraph
of this judgment. For deciding that question, it will be useful to notice
Sections 3(aa), 3(b) and 50 of the Act, which read as under:
1
“3(aa). the expression “local authority’ includes a town
planning authority (by whatever name called) set up under any
law for the time being in force.
3(b). the expression “person interested” includes all persons
claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of
the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be
deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an
easement affecting the land.”
50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or
Company – (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in
force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund
controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company,
the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be
defrayed from or by such fund or Company.
(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.”
23. The definition of the expressions “local authority” and “person
interested” are inclusive and not exhaustive. The difference between
exhaustive and inclusive definitions has been explained in P. Kasilingam v.
P.S.G. College of Technology (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348 in the following
words:
“A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by
using the word `means’ or the word `includes’. Sometimes the
words `means and includes’ are used. The use of the word
1`means’ indicates that “definition is a hard-and-fast definition,
and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is
put down in definition”. (See : Gough v. Gough; Punjab Land
Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court.) The word `includes’ when used, enlarges the
meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not
only such things as they signify according to their natural
import but also those things which the clause declares that they
shall include. The words “means and includes”, on the other
hand, indicate “an exhaustive explanation of the meaning
which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached
to these words or expressions”. (See: Dilworth v.
Commissioner of Stamps (Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil
Mills v. State of A.P. The use of the words “means and
includes” in Rule 2(b) would, therefore, suggest that the
definition of `college’ is intended to be exhaustive and not
extensive and would cover only the educational institutions
falling in the categories specified in Rule 2(b) and other
educational institutions are not comprehended. Insofar as
engineering colleges are concerned, their exclusion may be for
the reason that the opening and running of the private
engineering colleges are controlled through the Board of
Technical Education and Training and the Director of Technical
Education in accordance with the directions issued by the
AICTE from time to time.”
In Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Employees Union
(2007) 4 SCC 685, this Court again considered the difference between the
inclusive and exhaustive definitions and observed:
“When in the definition clause given in any statute the word
“means” is used, what follows is intended to speak exhaustively.
When the word “means” is used in the definition it is a “hard-and-
fast” definition and no meaning other than that which is put in the
definition can be assigned to the same. On the other hand, when
the word “includes” is used in the definition, the legislature does
not intend to restrict the definition: it makes the definition
1enumerative but not exhaustive. That is to say, the term defined
will retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be extended to
bring within it matters, which in its ordinary meaning may or may
not comprise. Therefore, the use of the word “means” followed by
the word “includes” in the definition of “banking company” in
Section 2(bb) of the ID Act is clearly indicative of the legislative
intent to make the definition exhaustive and would cover only
those banking companies which fall within the purview of the
definition and no other.”
In N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 502, the
Court observed :
“The word “includes” has different meanings in different contexts.
Standard dictionaries assign more than one meaning to the word
“include”. Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “include” as
synonymous with “comprise” or “contain”. Illustrated Oxford
Dictionary defines the word “include” as: (i) comprise or reckon in
as a part of a whole; (ii) treat or regard as so included. Collins
Dictionary of English Language defines the word “includes” as: (i)
to have as contents or part of the contents; be made up of or
contain; (ii) to add as part of something else; put in as part of a set,
group or a category; (iii) to contain as a secondary or minor
ingredient or element. It is no doubt true that generally when the
word “include” is used in a definition clause, it is used as a word
of enlargement, that is to make the definition extensive and not
restrictive. But the word “includes” is also used to connote a
specific meaning, that is, as “means and includes” or “comprises”
or “consists of”.”
In Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner
(2007) 5 SCC 281, it was held as under:
“When an interpretation clause uses the word “includes”, it is
prima facie extensive. When it uses the word “means and
2includes”, it will afford an exhaustive explanation to the meaning
which for the purposes of the Act must invariably be attached to
the word or expression.”
24. Undisputedly, the DDA is an authority constituted under Section 3 of
the 1957 Act for promoting and securing development of Delhi according to
plan and for this purpose it has the power to acquire, hold, manage and
dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering,
mining and other operations, to execute works in connection with supply of
water and electricity, disposal of sewage, etc. Therefore, it is clearly
covered by the definition of the expression “local authority”.
25. The definition of the expression “person interested” is in two parts.
The first part includes all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to
be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. The second
part contains a deeming provision and declares that a person shall be deemed
to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.
Section 50(1) lays down that where the provisions of the Act are invoked for
the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed
by a local authority or of any company, the incidental charges are required to
be defrayed from or by such fund or company. Section 50(2) lays down that
in the cases covered by sub-section (1), the local authority or company
2
concerned may appear in any proceeding held before a Collector or Court
and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation. However, by virtue of proviso to sub-section (2), the local
authority or company is barred from seeking reference under Section 18 of
the Act.
26. 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
2
become illusory. In Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francuis
Victor Coutinho (1980) 3 SCC 223, this Court, while examining the scope
of Section 18 of the Act, referred to the definition of the expression `person
interested’ contained in Section 3(b) of the Act and some of the judicial
precedents and observed:
“Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour
the view that the definition of “person interested” must be
liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a
company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is
bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our
opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice
and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for
whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the
compensation is not a person interested even though its stake
may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition
proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person
concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is
proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not
heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very
heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear
before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation
was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the
land.”
(emphasis supplied)
In Union of India v. District Judge (1994) 4 SCC 737, this Court
held that the Union of India for whose benefit the land was acquired was a
`person interested’ in the fixation of the proper and just compensation and
was entitled to challenge the determination made by the competent
authority/Court.
2
In Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (L.A.)
(supra), the Court was called upon to consider whether the appellant was
entitled to be impleaded as party respondent in the proceedings pending
before the Reference Court. The Reference Court dismissed the application
for impleadment holding that the appellant is not an `interested person’. The
High Court upheld the order of the Reference Court and dismissed the
revision filed by the appellant. The three-Judge Bench of this Court referred
to Sections 3(b) and 50 of the Act and held:
“12. It is true that Section 50(2) of the Act gives to the local
authority or the company right to adduce evidence before the
Collector or in the reference under Section 18 as it was
specifically stated that in any proceedings held before the
Collector or the Court, the local authority or the company may
appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the
amount of compensation. However, it has no right to seek
reference. Based thereon, the contention is that the limited right
of adduction of evidence for the purpose of determining the
compensation does not carry with it the right to participate in
the proceedings or right to be heard or to file an appeal under
Section 54. We cannot limit the operation of Section 3(b) in
conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act within
a narrow compass. The right given under sub-section (2) of
Section 50 is in addition to and not in substitution of or in
derogation to all the incidental, logical and consequential rights
flowing from the concept of fair and just procedure consistent
with the principles of natural justice. The consistent thread that
runs through all the decisions of this Court starting from
Himalayan Tiles case is that the beneficiary, i.e., local authority
or company, a cooperative society registered under the relevant
2State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to
determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land
and is an aggrieved person. It flows from it that the beneficiary
has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the
compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its
correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the
Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of
the court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and
decree of the Civil Court under Section 26 or of the judgment
and decree under Section 54 or is entitled to file writ petition
under Article 226 and assail its legality or correctness.
13. The reasons are not far to seek. It is notorious that though
the stakes involved are heavy, the Government plead or the
instructing officer do not generally adduce, much less proper
and relevant, evidence to rebut the claims for higher
compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal,
halting and ineffective. Generally, if not invariably the
governmental agencies involved in the process take their own
time and many a time in collusion, file the appeals after
abnormal or inordinate delay. They remain insensitive even if
the States involved run into several crores of public money. The
courts insist upon proper explanation of every day’s delay. In
this attitudinal situation it would be difficult to meet strict
standards to fill the unbridgeable gaps of the delay in filing the
appeals and generally entails dismissal of the appeals at the
threshold without adverting to the merits of the hike in the
compensation. On other hand if the notice is issued to the local
authority etc. it/they would participate in the award proceedings
under Sections 11 and 18, adduce necessary and relevant
evidence and be heard before the Collector and the court before
determining compensation. For instance that without
considering the evidence in the proper perspective, the court
determined the compensation.
14. If there is no right of hearing or appeal given to the
beneficiary and if the State does not file the appeal or if filed
with delay and it was dismissed, is it not the beneficiary who
2
undoubtedly bears the burden of the compensation, who would
be the affected person? Is it not interested to see that the
appellate court would reassess the evidence and fix the proper
and just compensation as per law? For instance the reference
court determined market value at Rs.1,00,000 while the
prevailing market value of the land is only Rs.10,000. Who is to
bear the burden? Suppose State appeal was dismissed due to
refusal to condone the delay, is it not an unjust and illegal
award? Many an instance can be multiplied. But suffice it to
state that when the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is
acquired is served with the notice and brought on record at the
stage of enquiry by the Collector and reference court under
Section 18 or in an appeal under Section 54, it/they would be
interested to defend the award under Section 11 or Section 26
or would file an appeal independently under Section 54 etc.
against the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or proper
party affected by the determination of higher compensation, the
beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the
award made by the reference court under Section 18 or in
appeal under Section 54 etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
The same issue was considered by the Constitution Bench in U.P.
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (supra). The facts show that the
acquisition of land `Trans-Yamuna Housing and Accommodation Scheme’
led to lot of litigation. The appellant, who had not been impleaded as party
in the reference proceedings or in the appeal before the High Court,
unsuccessfully sought review of the High Court’s judgment and then filed
special leave petitions. This Court considered the question whether the
2
Board was entitled to participate in the proceedings held for determination of
compensation, referred to Section 50(2) of the Act and observed:
“The said right can be effectively exercised by the local
authority only if it has information of the proceedings which are
pending before the Collector as well as the reference court. In
other words the right conferred under Section 50(2) of the L.A.
Act carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the
Collector as well as the reference court before whom the
acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the
matter of determination of the amount of compensation will be
taken up. Service of such a notice, being necessary for
effectuating the right conferred on the local authority under
Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, can, therefore, be regarded as an
integral part of the said right and the failure to give such a
notice would result in denial of the said right unless it can be
shown that the local authority had knowledge about the
pendency of the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or
the reference court and has not suffered any prejudice on
account of failure to give such notice.
Thus, on an interpretation of the provisions of Section 50(2) of
the L.A. Act, it must be concluded that, subject to the limitation
contained in the proviso, a local authority for whom land is
being acquired has a right to participate in the proceedings for
acquisition before the Collector as well as the reference court
and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount
of compensation and the said right imposes an obligation on the
Collector as well as the reference court to give a notice to the
local authority with regard to the pendency of those
proceedings and the date on which the matter of determination
of amount of compensation would be taken up.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Constitution Bench also considered the nature of remedies available to
the local authority and observed:
2
“We would now revert to the question regarding the legal
remedies that are available to a local authority which feels
aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation
by the Collector or by the reference court. In this context, it
may be stated that the limitation placed by the proviso on the
right conferred by Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act cannot be so
construed as to deprive the local authority which feels
aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation
by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies
available under the L.A. Act. The proviso to Section 50(2) only
takes away the remedy of a reference under Section 18 of the
L.A. Act. Examining this question in the context of the
proceedings before the Collector we can envisage the following
situations :
(i) No notice was given to the local authority under
sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the L.A. Act and as a
result the local authority could not appear before the
Collector to adduce evidence;
(ii) Notice was served on the local authority and in
response to said notice the local authority appeared
before the Collector; and
(iii) Notice was served on the local authority but in
spite of service of such notice the local authority failed to
appear and adduce evidence before the Collector.
In a case where no notice is given to the local authority the
position of the local authority is not different from that of the
Municipal Corporation in Neelagangabai v. State of Karnataka.
In that case there was an express provision in Section 20 of
L.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension
Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice on the
person or local authority for whom the acquisition is made. On
a construction of Section 50(2) we have found that service of
such a notice is implicit in the right conferred under Section
50(2) of the L.A. Act. Since the failure to give a notice would
result in denial of the right conferred on the local authority
under Section 50(2) it would be open to the local authority to
2
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution to challenge the award made by the Collector
as was done in Neelagangabai case. In a case where notice has
been served on the local authority and it has appeared before
the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account
of it being denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the
evidence adduced by it having not been considered by the
Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated
by mala fides. Since the amount of the compensation is to be
paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the
determination of the said amount, which has been given
recognition in Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, the local authority
would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail
the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority
from seeking a reference.
We may now come to the stage of the proceedings before the
court in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act made at
the instance of a person having interest in the land being
acquired. At this stage also Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act
envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and
adduce evidence before the court. This right is independent of
the right that is available to the local authority to appear and
adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local
authority had failed to appear before the Collector in spite of
notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced
evidence, the local authority may consider it necessary to
adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person
who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by
the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in
denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we
consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against
the denial of this right we may examine whether the local
authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the
proceedings before the reference court. That raises the question
whether the local authority can be regarded as a necessary or a
proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is
one without whom no order can be made effectively and a
2
proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be
made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final
decision of the question involved in the proceeding. (See Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of
Revenue.) A local authority for whom land is being acquired
has a right to participate in the acquisition proceedings in the
matter of determination of the amount of compensation while
they are pending before the Collector and to adduce evidence in
the said proceedings. While it is precluded from seeking a
reference against the award of the Collector it can defend the
award and oppose the enhancement of the amount of
compensation sought before the reference court by the person
interested in the land. Moreover the local authority has a right
to appear and adduce evidence before the reference court.
Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the presence of the local authority is necessary for
the decision of the question involved in the proceedings before
the reference court and it is a proper party in the proceedings.
The local authority is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a
party in the proceedings before the reference court.
In case the amount of compensation has been enhanced by the
court and no appeal is filed by the Government the local
authority if adversely affected by such enhancement may file an
appeal with the leave of the court. This right of the local
authority does not depend on its being impleaded as a party in
the proceedings before the reference court. Even if the local
authority is not impleaded as a party before the reference court
it can file an appeal against the award of the reference court in
the High Court after obtaining leave if it is prejudicially
affected by the award. In case the Government files an appeal
against the enhancement of the award the local authority is
entitled to support the said appeal and get itself impleaded as a
party. When the person having an interest in the land files an
appeal in the High Court against the award of the reference
court and seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation
the local authority should be impleaded as a party in the said
appeal and it is entitled to be served with the notice of the said
appeal so that it can defend the award of the reference court and
3
oppose enhancement of the amount of compensation before the
High Court. The same will be the situation in case of an appeal
to this Court from the decision of the High Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
In Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer (2001) 2 SCC 646, this Court held that as the land was acquired on
behalf of the appellant, it was entitled to an opportunity to appear and
adduce evidence on the issue of determination of the amount of
compensation and the mere fact that it was aware of the proceedings and had
participated in the meetings with the Government and Collector was not
sufficient compliance with Section 50 of the Act.
In Abdul Rasak v. Kerala Water Authority (2002) 3 SCC 228, a
two-Judge Bench considered the question whether the local authority on
whose behalf the land was initially not acquired but to whom the land was
subsequently transferred is entitled to be heard in the matter. While
rejecting the argument that the Kerala Water Authority being a successor of
the Public Health Department for whose benefit the land was initially
acquired is not a necessary party, the Court observed:
“Shri T.L.V. Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the claimant-
appellants has submitted that Kerala Water Authority is the
3successor of Public Health Engineering Department of the State
Government, and bound by the proceedings conducted by or
against the State Government and, therefore, the Constitution
Bench decision does not have any applicability to the facts of
the present case and the High Court ought not to have set aside
the awards and remanded the cases to the reference court. We
find it difficult to subscribe to the view so forcefully canvassed
by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. KWA came
into existence as a statutory corporation on 1-4-1984. It may be
said to have succeeded to the liability incurred by the State
Government so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Collector is concerned but so far as the enhancement in the
quantum of compensation is concerned, it will be a liability of
KWA incurred by it after its coming into existence and,
therefore, to the extent of enhancement, the authority was
certainly entitled to notice and right to participate in the
proceedings before the reference court leading to enhancement
of compensation.”
(emphasis supplied)
The view expressed by the Constitution Bench in Gyan Devi’s case
was reiterated in Kanak v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2003) 7 SCC
693 and Regional Medical Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran (2004)
13 SCC 125.
27. In view of the above discussion, we hold that :
(i) the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions
“local authority” [Section 3(aa)] and “person interested”
[Section 3(b)] of the Act;
3
(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.
3
28. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court as also the judgments of the Reference
Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for
deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce evidence for
the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Reference
Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations
contained in the judgment of the High Court and this judgment.
29. In view of the above conclusions, the cross-objections filed on behalf
of the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector in C.A. Nos.6564
and 6565 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. However, as the judgments
of the Reference Court and the High Court have been set aside and a
direction has been given for fresh determination of the amount of
compensation payable to the respondents, the Union of India and the Land
Acquisition Collector shall be free to participate in the proceedings before
the Reference Court.
3
30. Since the matter is more than 32 years old, we direct the Reference
Court to decide the matter as early as possible but latest within 9 months
from the of date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
31. We further direct that if the amount of enhanced compensation
determined by the Reference Court vide judgments dated 27.7.1980 and
14.5.1994 has already been paid to the respondents or their predecessors,
then they shall not be required to refund the same.
………………………..J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
…………………………J.
[Asok Kumar Ganguly]
New Delhi
December 08, 2010