Delhi District Court
Jagdish vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
M. No. 108/17
Misc. DJ-411/17
Jagdish .....Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
ORDER
1. An application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the applicant Jagdish son of Sh. Kantu @ Kattu seeking review of order dated 05.09.2007.
2. The brief facts as stated in the application are that the applicant / petitioner ws the Bhumidar / owner of land bearing Kh. No. 12//8/2 (0-05), 12//9/2 (4-10),12//10/1 (3-
16),12//11/1 (3-04), 13//15/2 (-4) total land measuring 12 Bigha 19 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala, Delhi-110041, having 1/6th share, the land of the applicant has been acquired for the purpose of "100 Mrts. read with link Road connecting NH-10 to Dwarka Sub-City in village Mundka - Bakkarwala and other scheme under Planned Development of Delhi".
3. It is stated that the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the award as no notice under Section 9 & 10 of L.A. Act has been issued to the applicant nor any compensation amount was assessed in the name of the applicant, as there was no revenue record in favour of the applicant due to mistake / omission by the concerned clerk M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 1 of 6 while preparing the recorded of right and thereafter, earlier to acquisition as and when the applicant came to know about the omission in the revenue record. The applicant had filed petition under Section 26 of Delhi Land Reform Act, in the court of SDM/RA (Pujnjabi Bagh) and same was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2011 in case No. 457/RA/PB/1987 by the then SDM/RA (Punjabi Bagh) Sh. Pradeep Kumar and vide this order Ld. SDM ordered that Sh. Kantu S/o Nandram having 1/6 share in the land in question be re-entered in the revenue record and it was also directed that the order be implemented in the revenue record.
4. That the LAC (West) reframed the matter under Section 30-31 of LA Act to this Court and sent the compensation amount of Rs.10,11,533.00 to the ADJ Court and finally this Court decided the reference under Section 30- 31 of L.A. Act vide judgment dated 02.11.2015, and released the compensation amount in favour of the applicant.
5. It is stated that after decision of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, the applicant has also filed reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act as per the decided case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Madan vs. State of Maharashtra 2014 (2) SCC 720 as per the said Judgment, for filing of reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act after decision of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, the limitation period starts from the date of judgment of decision of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act and in the present case the applicant has filed the reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act within the period of limitation. The applicant also cited one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 2 of 6 of India titled as Parsottm Bhal Maganwai and other vs. State of Gujarat through Deputy Collector, Modasa and another - 2005 SCR 801, wherein it was held that Limitation under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to be calculated from the date of knowledge of declaration of award either actual or construction and in present case the applicant got the constructive knowledge when reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act decided by this Court i.e. on 02.11.2015, meaning thereby the applicant could got the knowledge of his exact compensation amount from the judgment dated 02.11.2015 of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act.
6. It is also stated that this Court while deciding the issue No.1 in judgment dated 05.09.2017 decided the issue No.1 in favour of respondent and against the applicant, although the onus to prove the issue No.1 was on respondent and the respondent failed to lead any evidence on the point of limitation and as per law when the onus of issue was on respondents, it is the legal duty of the respondent to prove the same by leading evidence in respect of limitation, and in the present case they failed to do so, and it is error on the face of record, when no evidence against the applicant, on behalf of respondent, the issue No.1 has to be decided in favour of applicant.
7. It is also stated that this Court erroneously interpreted the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and could not apprise the argument of the applicant, which was completely based on the Supreme Court Judgments and in the cited case it was clearly held that limitation period for filing of reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act, the limitation M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 3 of 6 period starts from the date of judgment of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act as only then the applicant got the actual and constructive knowledge, regarding award, it is also worth mentioning here that the actual and constructive knowledge means, when the applicant got / received the knowledge regarding amount of compensation and in the present case the applicant got the actual and constructive knowledge when the judgment dated 02.11.2015 was passed. The application be allowed and Judgment dated 05.09.2017 may be reviewed and set aside.
8. Reply to the application has been filed by the respondent No.1 - Union of India. In the reply it is stated that application is not maintainable since the Judgment passed by this Court dated 05.09.2017 in LAC No. 1/2017 is as per law and after appreciation of facts and the date of knowledge of the award in question to the applicant in the year 2009 when he contested the reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act. Therefore, the present application / petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. It is also stated that the judgment passed on 05.09.2017 is perfectly correct and as per law and precedent laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court of India and hence needs no interference and the instant application is liable to be rejeced on this ground also.
10. In reply on merits, all the averments made in the application / petition are denied and stated to be false, frivolous, concocted, misconceived, baseless and wrong.
M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 4 of 611. It is prayed that review petition be rejected with exemplary costs.
12. I have heard Sh. D.S. Lakra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant / petitioner, Sh. Vinay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Union of India and Ms. Rashmi Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the DDA. I have also perused the record.
13. The present review application has been filed on 23.11.2017 to review the Judgment dated 05.09.2017. The review application is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The ground taken in the application is that petitioner 74 years old and suffering from eye and other health problems, therefore, could not contact his Counsel. There is no mention of any other health ailment, which restrained the petitioner to contact his Counsel for filing of review application. The documents filed on record pertaining to January-2017 with regard to eye treatment. It shows that petitioner was already under eye treatment. Therefore, nothing shows that just after passing of the impugned judgment, he was suffering from any disease, which restrained him to contact his Counsel to file review application. In my opinion no plausible sufficient reason has been shown to condone the delay in filing the review application. Therefore, the review application is dismissed being barred by time.
14. Now coming to the merit. The issue of maintainability was raised on the plea of the respondents. However, as per Section 18 L.A. Act, in application before the Collector specific plea was taken by the petitioner that he M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 5 of 6 came to know about the Award when his reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act decided on 02.11.2015 and reference petition was filed on 01.12.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act relied by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the claim before LAC on 09.03.2009. In case he has no knowledge of the Award and acquisition of the land, then how he filed the claim and raised disputes under Section 30-31 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings in the year 2005 Award was pronounced on 11.08.2006. Thereafter, for the three years petitioner raised the disputes. It is established that in the year 2009 the had complete knowledge of Award. Further more, the petitioner despite given opportunity failed to brought on record evidence to support his plea. Therefore, on merit as well, I do not find any error apparent on record to review the Judgment dated 05.09.2017.
15. Lastly, it is pertinent to mention here that Land Acquisition Act is a Code in itself. It provides appeal under Section 54, if any person is aggrieved with the final Judgment / Award of the Reference Court. Therefore, when appropriate remedy has been provided, then review application is not maintainable under Order XLVII CPC.
16. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 27.07.2018.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi M411/17 Jagdish Vs. UOI& Ors. Page 6 of 6