Delhi District Court
Yashbir Singh vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 29 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 03/11
In the matter of :-
1. Yashbir Singh
Son of Late Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o Village Bamnoli, Delhi.
2. Yashwant Singh
Son of Late Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o Village Bamnoli, Delhi.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. The Land Acquisition Collector,
District South West, Kapashera,
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
...Respondents
Filed on : 06.05.2011
Reserved on : 29.10.2011
Decided on : 29.10.2011
J U D G M E N T :-
1. Petitioner No. 1 Shri Yashveer Singh and Petitioner No. 2 Shri Yashwant Singh both sons of Shri Ajit Singh were the recorded owners of land comprised in Khasra No. 5//15/3 (2-9), 16/1(0-4), 14(3-10) and 31//1(3-6) total measuring 9 bigha 9 biswa in the revenue estate of village Bamnoli. They had LAC No. 03/11 Page 1/12 full share in this land i.e.1/2 share each.
2. Besides the above parcels of land, the petitioners were also the recorded owners of land comprised in Khasra No. 6//21(4-0) and 5//25/5(1-9) total measuring 5 bigha and 9 biswa. In these parcels of land, the petitioners had 1/3rd share i.e. 1/6th share each.
3. The above noted land was acquired for the Dwarka Phase II, Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi vide Award No. 01/2007-2008.The award was preceded by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 4.11.2004 and notification under Section 6 of the L. A. Act on 31.10.2005. The award was announced in the open court by the ADM(HQ)/LAC on 06.08.2007.
4. Except for land in Khasra No. 31//1(3-6), the possession of the land of the petitioners was taken over between 12.09.2007 to 14.09.2007.
5. So far as the possession of land in Khasra No. 31//1(3-06) is concerned, as the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the possession was taken over on 20.01.2011. This fact is evident from statement under Section 19 of L. A. Act filed by LAC while sending this reference to this court.
6. The collector determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,27,083.33 per bigha for such land which was placed in category A. The land in question was also in category A.
7. The petitioners were not satisfied with the market value so determined by the LAC.
8. They preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.12.2010 and demanded enhanced compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000 per sq. yds.,Rs.1,00,000 for the tubewell, pucca room and water channel besides Rs. 25,000 towards litigation charges. The petitioners also LAC No. 03/11 Page 2/12 claimed all the statutory benefits.
9. The petitioners have also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the reference. Therefore, the petitioners admitted that the reference is time barred but stated that they had a sufficient cause for not preferring the reference within limitation period .
10. The reason for seeking condonation of delay in making the reference is that the petitioners were neither present nor represented when the award was passed. They were not given a notice of passing of award under Section 12(2) of the L. A. Act. It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of February 2009, when they enquired on their own, they came to know that the award is already passed by LAC in the month of August 2007 itself.
11. It is the case of the petitioners that they had engaged their counsel Sh. S. C. Dhamija (Advocate) who was earlier engaged by them during the continuance of proceedings before the LAC. It is alleged that the said counsel had given a false impression that reference proceedings w.r.t. the said award has already been instituted in the concerned court, to which the applicants relied in toto trusting upon the version of their counsel.
12. It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of April 2010 when they visited the office of their counsel Shri S.C.Dhamija to enquire the fate of their reference petition, they came to know about his death and since he was seriously ill for a prolonged period of time, the reference petition of the petitioners could not be filed.
13. Now, the petitioners accuse late Shri S.C.Dhamija of misrepresentations and false promises.
14. It is the case of the petitioners that they in a utter haste accepted the compensation under protest on 09.08.2010.
15. Reference was preferred on 22.12.2010.
LAC No. 03/11 Page 3/1216. The petitioners pray that delay in filing the reference be condoned and reference be treated as filed within limitation.
17. Union of India and the beneficiary i.e. DDA filed their written statements and opposed any increase in the market value of the land in question. Besides other objections, limitation is also one of the objections. Therefore, following issues were framed in this reference:-
(i) Whether the reference petition is within limitation?
(ii) What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification under Section 4 of L. A. Act?
(iii) Relief.
19. Petitioner No.1 Shri Yashbir Singh entered the witness box as PW1 and following documents were exhibited:-
(i) Exhibit PW1/1 : Evidence by way of affidavit.
(ii)Exhibit PW1/2 : Guide map of Dwarka Sub City.
(iii)Exhibit PW1/3-9 : Sale Deeds.
(iv)Exhibit PW1/10 : Sale Deed of village Bharthal.
(iv)Exhibit PW1/11 : Special power of attorney.
(v)Exhibit PW1/12 : Copy of judgment in the case of Jai Parkash Vs. Union of India.
(vi)Exhibit PW1/13 : Obituary letter issued by the Delhi Bar Association on the death of Shri S. C. Dhamija, Advocate.
20. In the cross examination, this witness deposed that he is living in the village Bamnoli since his birth. The land in question was mutated in the names of petitioners in the year 1998. Compensation was taken by the petitioners in the month of August 2010. He did not know the date of possession by the collector. He was not cultivating the land in question himself and used to give the land for it's cultivation on lease. He admitted that the land in question was included in the notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. He had received notices under Section 9 and 10 of the L. A. Act and filed his claim LAC No. 03/11 Page 4/12 in response to those notices. He admitted that he came to know the passing of the award in February 2009. He stated that application for compensation was filed by them one month before receiving the compensation. (Since payment was received by Petitioner No.2 on 30.04.2010, the date of application for the release of payment would be 30.03.2010. The date of payment to Petitioner No. 1 was 03.05.2010, the date of application for the release of payment would be 03.04.2010). He admitted that he came to know that his reference petition was not filed in the month of April 2010. He denied the suggestion that there was no fault on behalf of his counsel and just to cover the limitation period, he is deposing a false story.
21. On behalf of Union of India, award in question was exhibited as Exhibit R-1,two sale deeds were exhibited as Exhibit R-2 and 3, Form CC showing payment to Petitioner No. 2 on 30.04.2010 was exhibited as Exhibit RW1/A and payment certificate dated 15.02.2011 was exhibited as Exhibit RW1/B, Form CC showing payment to Petitioner No. 1 on 03.05.2010 was exhibited as Exhibit RW1/C and payment certificate dated 09.08.2010 was exhibited as Exhibit RW1/D.
22. Arguments were addressed by Shri Parteek Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri J.R.Mathur, learned counsel for the Union of India and Shri Arvind Gupta, learned counsel for DDA.
23. Issue wise findings are as under:-
24. Issue No.2:- In the case of Jai Parkash Vs. Union of India and others which was LAC No. 93/09/08 and was decided by this court on 25/08/2010 the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 17,45,000/- per acre. There is no new evidence to take a different view for determining the market value in this reference. There is no evidence that the land in question was inferior than the land that was subject matter in the LAC No. 03/11 Page 5/12 reference of Jai Parkash. Both the counsels did not address any argument to persuade this court to take a different view than the view already taken in the case of Jai Parkash. Therefore, issue no. 2 is answered holding and directing that the market value of the land in question on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is Rs.17,45,000/- per acre.
25. Issue No.1:- For deciding the issue of limitation, relevant provision of L. A. Act is Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 which reads as under:-
Section 18 (1)...
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made:-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under section 12, Sub-Section (2), or within six months from the date of the collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
26. Petitioners admit that the reference is filed beyond limitation. That is why they have prayed for the condonation of delay in preferring the reference. Without going into the merits/demerits of the case of the petitioners in their application under Section 5 of the Limitation act, the said application is liable to be dismissed as Section 5 of the limitation Act is not applicable to a reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. Reliance can be made in this regard on the following judgments:-
(i) Bhagwan Dass Versus State of Utter Pradesh: 2010 (3) SCC 545
(ii) Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr. Versus Shah Mani Lal Chandu Lal & Ors: (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 414 LAC No. 03/11 Page 6/12
(iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus S.U.T.N.I. Sangam:
2010 AIR (SC) 112
(iv) Daya Nand Versus Union of India: 2009 (157) Delhi Law Times 541
(v) Bale Ram Versus Land Acquisition Collector: 2005 (121) DLT 454
(vi) Jagdish Versus Land Acquisition Collector/ADM (North-
East) 2005 (7) AD (Delhi) 573.
27. Therefore, the reference is liable to be dismissed being barred by law of limitation in as much as the petitioners have admitted that they had filed the reference beyond period of limitation and have sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act which provision of Limitation Act is inapplicable for LAC while considering the reference filed by a bhumidar under Section 18 of L. A. Act.
28. Moreover, on behalf of LAC, copy of order dated 03.03.2011 passed by him in the matter of Yashvir Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India is filed on record. The said order reads as under:-
ORDER This order will dispose off Reference petition U.s 18 of LA Act 1894 filed by Sh. Yashveer Singh. The petitioner has filed petition against the findings and determination of Market Value of the land, structure, trees etc. vide Award No. 01/2007-08 of village Bamnoli.
As per LA Act 1894 reference U/18 shall be filed:
1. If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his ward, within six weeks from the date of Collector's Award.
2. In other cases, within six weeks of receiving the notice from the Collector U/s 12, Sub-Section(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's Award whenever period shall first expired.
The applicant has filed reference U/s 18 on LAC No. 03/11 Page 7/12 22.12.2010 and was received in this office on 29.12.2010. Award was announced on 06.08.2007 as such application is not within the time limit hence rejected.
Sd/-
(SATNAM SINGH) ADM/LAC (SW)
29. Once LAC had rejected the application being barred by limitation on 03.03.2011, he had no jurisdiction to refer this reference to this court on 06.05.2011. The reference itself is bad in law. In the case of Bale Ram (supra) it is held that 'Filing of an application within time is a sine qua non for its entertainment by the collector in terms of the provisions of the statute. As the collector is discharging its statutory functions he is bound by the provisions of the statute. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and does not permit for application of general principles of law and even of the Limitation Act by the collector. The collector in fact has no power to condone the delay. Thus essentially he would have to reject an application which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act'.
30. Therefore, in view of order dated 03.03.2011 passed by LAC (SW) this reference is bad and is liable to be dismissed on this score as well.
31. On merits also, the reference is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
32. Petitioners were not present or represented when the award was passed. They were not served with a notice under Section 12 Sub-Section (2) of the L.A. Act. Therefore, the limitation would be six month's from the date of collector's award.
33. Date of award is 06.08.2007. But the limitation will not end on 07.02.2008 because period of six months is to be computed from the date LAC No. 03/11 Page 8/12 essential contents of award came to the knowledge of the petitioners making reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act. Reference can be made to:-
(i) Raja Harish Chander Raj Singh Vs. The Dy. Land acquisition Officer: AIR 1961 SC 1500.
(ii) State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Jehan Begum AIR 1963 SC 1604.
(iii) Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs. Union of India:1988 RLR 224.
34. When did the petitioners came to know the essential contents of the award?
35. It is the case of petitioners themselves that they came to know about passing of the award in the month of February 2009 when they enquired on their own and came to know that the award is already passed by LAC in the month of August 2007 itself.
36. Admittedly, neither the petitioners inspected their records nor applied for a certified copy of the award.
37. In the case of State of Punjab Versus Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 which was followed in the case of Mahadeo Bajirao Versus State of Maharashtra 2005 (7) SCC 440, it is noted that under the scheme of Act, LAC is not required to give a copy of the Award to the party present at the time of announcement of the Award or along with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. A party intending to challenge the Award has to inspect the same or take a certified copy from the Collector.
38. As the reference is filed on 22.12.2010 and petitioners had come to know about passing of the award in the month of February 2009, the reference was made beyond limitation.
39. In the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 31 as under:-
'31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the collector by proving that LAC No. 03/11 Page 9/12 the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge...'
40. Admittedly, in the month of April 2010 the petitioners came to know that the counsel engaged by them had not filed reference on their behalf. This excuse that the counsel did not prefer the reference within limitation is not proved by any evidence. Petitioners have not stated at all when did they sign the reference petition prepared by their counsel for filing before the LAC. The version of petitioners is therefore doubtful and unbelievable.
41. Presuming for the sake of arguments that the version of petitioners is correct, even then the reference is time barred as even after receiving knowledge in the month of April 2010 that no reference is filed on behalf of petitioners, the petitioners did not file any reference within six months of that knowledge and filed the reference on 22.12.2010.
42. Perusal of statement under Section 19 of L A Act shows that possession of khasra No. 31//1(3-6) was not taken between 12.09.2007 to 14.09.2007 when possession of the remaining land of the petitioners was taken over because writ petition was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and possession was taken on 20.01.2011.
43. If the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi then surely petitioners were aware of essential contents of the award more than six months before the filing of the reference.
LAC No. 03/11 Page 10/1244. Petitioners received the compensation from collector on 30.04.2010 and 03.05.2010. Reference can be made to Ex.RW1/A and Ex. RW1/C in this regard. It is their own case that they had filed application before the collector one month before the date of receiving the compensation. In the application for compensation, a bhumidar whose land is acquired has to furnish surety bond and indemnity bond mentioning exact amount payable to him, details of acquired land etc. It means the petitioners came to know about essential contents of award in the month of March 2010. Filing of reference on 22.12.2010 is again barred by limitation.
45. In the case of Bale Ram (supra) it is held that 'Prohibition of limitation in a statute is normally to be construed strictly and the equitable or ethical consideration would not normally be with the courts in giving it totally a liberal interpretation so as to wipe out every effect of the limitation clause.
46. In the case of 'State of Karnataka versus Laxuman' 2006 (1) LACC 13 it is held:-
"A statute can, even while conferring a right, provide also for a repose. The Limitation Act is not an equitable piece of legislation but is a statute of repose. The right undoubtedly available to a litigant becomes unenforceable if the litigant does not approach the Court within the time prescribed. It is in this context that it has been said that the law is for the diligent. The law expects a litigant to seek the enforcement of a right available to him within a reasonable time of the arising of the cause of action and that reasonable time is reflected by the various articles of the Limitation Act".
47. Therefore, the reference is dismissed as not maintainable after passing of order dated 03.03.2011 by LAC (SW) holding that reference is time barred as well as on limitation.
48. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this order be sent LAC No. 03/11 Page 11/12 to LAC (SW). Decree be prepared in terms of this order. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on the 29th day of October, 2011 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI LAC No. 03/11 Page 12/12