Delhi High Court
Sh. Budh Ram Through Lrs vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 March, 2011
Author: S.L Bhayana
Bench: S.L. Bhayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi
C.M.(M) No. 760/2010
Date of Decision:- 07.3.2011
Shri Budh Ram (Since Deceased) Through LR's ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Vashisht, counsel
for the petitioner.
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Amit
Mehra, counsel for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in
the Digest? Yes
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the order dated 10.2.2010, whereby the legal heirs of deceased petitioner Budh Ram have been held as not entitled to statutory interest from 2.5.1998 to 2.2.2007 on the ground that their application for substitution was filed on 2.2.2007 while the deceased died on 28.9.1993.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of this case are that a petition was filed by the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of deceased Shri Budh Ram who expired on 28.9.1993.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 1
3. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter
referred as "the Collector"), late Shri Budh Ram and his brother filed a joint petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). After that Budh Ram has passed away on 28.9.1993.
4. Thereafter, his legal heirs has filed an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased under Order XXII Rule 2 and 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, on 30.11.1993 before the Collector and was received in the office of the Collector vide Diary No.3272 dated 2.12.1993. On the basis of the application filed by the LRs they were given compensation by the Collector on 9.3.1994. The reference petition under section 18 of the Act was sent to the Reference Court on 2.5.1998 along with the statement of the Collector under section 19 of the Act. However, the Collector did not send the application under Order XXII Rule 2 and 3 and the LRs of the deceased remained under impression that the LRs of deceased had already been brought on record by the Collector as the said application was moved within limitation period and applicants had received balance payment of compensation payable to their deceased father and as such there was no necessity to file another application under Order XXII Rule 2 and 3 of CPC as the Collector had filed statement under section 19 of the Act by mentioning the names of the applicants as LRs of deceased Budh Ram.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner had already filed their substitution application before the Collector and the Collector after recognizing them as persons interested has released the compensation in favour of legal heirs as per the corrigendum. The Collector has erroneously not forwarded the application for substitution filed before him by the LRs of the deceased petitioner.
6. Further he disputed that the Trial Judge has wrongly relied on Dayanand Vs. Union of India, 2009(157)DLT 210.The said case dealt with the issue as to whether the interested persons were bound to file substitution application before the Collector . The said judgment was no authority in law that no interest has to be paid for the period during which the petition stood abated.
7. Further counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Union of India Vs.Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., dated 19.9.1979, Delhi High Court, wherein the court has granted the interest for the period where stay of the proceedings was obtained by the land owners on the facts that the enhanced compensation lay with the Government all the time and that the possession of the land was also already obtained by the Government and that the owner has not sought stay of dispossession. The Court held that there was prejudice caused to the Government. The court also held that the Courts only in most exceptional circumstances should depart from the general rule of granting statutory interest.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 3
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Land Acquisition Act is an ex-proprietary legislation compulsorily depriving the land owners of their property. The only relief to the land owners is the compensation along with statutory interests. The provisions as to substitution of the legal representative are merely technical requirement for proper prosecution of the reference petition.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Shri Budh Ram expired on 28.9.1993. A reference was sent to the reference court on2.5.1998 along with the statement under section 19 of the Act wherein the fact of the death of the petitioner was mentioned. The said reference was disposed of on 15.3.2004wherein the claim made by Ram Mehar was allowed and the claim of the deceased petitioner was abated in the absence of the LRs having been brought on record despite notice. It is clear from the reading of the impugned order that despite notice, the LRs of Shri Budh Ram did not make any application to the reference court as required under the law which resulted in dismissal of the reference petition. The dismissal was never challenged by the LRs of Late Shri Budh Ram. However, on a challenge laid by the Union of India, the judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the reference court for adjudication afresh vide order dated24.5.2005 without noticing the fact that Shri Budh Ram had already expired earlier and the reference stood abated.
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 4
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that, the petitioner had moved an application on 2.2.2007 for bringing on record the LRs of Late Shri Budh Ram along with an application for condonation of delay and setting aside the order of abatement.
11. Further it was asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the reference court allowed the substitution of the LRs belatedly, but declined to grant interest for the period of delay, i.e., 29.9.1993 till 2.2.2007, when the application was made. The Reference Court has relied upon Dayanand Vs. Union of India, 2009(157) DLT 210.
12. Further learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that despite service of notice to the LRs, they chose not to file any application or to participate in the reference proceedings at pre-remand stage. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Kanwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India,120(2005)DLT 348 (DB), wherein the High Court has declined interest for the period where a party is found to be negligent in pursuing the proceedings.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully. I find that the grievance of the petitioner is that the Reference Court by its order dated 10.2.2010 has directed non-payment of interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the receiving of the reference petition {C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 5 dated 2.5.1998 to the date of filing of the substitution application i.e.2.2.2007.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the order of abatement be condoned as the LRs had filed the required application under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Collector and for the failure of the Collector in not sending the said application along with reference, the LRs of the deceased Budhram be not made to suffer.
15. The Trial Court has rightly heard and decided the case of the petitioner vide impugned judgment. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-
"Resultantly, the application filed by LRs of Shri Budh Ram for their substitution is allowed subject to a condition that the LRs of Shri Budh Ram would get no interest from 02.05.1998till 02.02.2007on the amount of compensation awarded in this case. As the widow of deceased and both his daughters have executed relinquishment deed relinquishing their share in favour of both sons of Shri Budh Ram in equal proportion, the said four sons of Shri Budh Ram are substituted as LRs of Shri Budh Ram."
16. The petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter. As the wife of the deceased has received the Reference Court notice on 02.06.1998, despite receipt of the notice they have not approached the Reference Court for substitution. Para 4of the judgment dated 15.3.2004 is reproduced below:-
"The court notice of present reference was sent to the claimant. The court notice was received back duly served to Smt. Chander wife of Sh. Budh Ram. Neither Smt. Chander nor any other LRs of Sh. Budh Ram filed any application for their substitution in place of Budh Ram since the date of service of {C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 6 court notice i.e. 02.06.1998 till date, so the claim of Sh. Budh Ram stands abated."
17. Even after receipt of the court notice from the reference court which was duly served on Smt. Chander wife of Sh. Budh Ram the petitioner did not file any application for substitution before the Reference Court and therefore, the claim of Budh Ram was ordered to stand abated.
18. In view of the above stated discussion, the petitioners cannot be granted the interest for the period of which they had not approached the court for being substituted in place of Budh Ram as their LRs.
19. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Trial Court.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
S.L BHAYANA, J.
March 7th, 2011
{C.M. (M) No. 760/2010} Page 7