Delhi High Court - Orders
Amarjit Singh Kalra(Decd.)Thr.Lrs vs Pramod Gupta(Decd.) Lrs.& Ors on 1 December, 2022
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 309/1980 & CM APPLs. 13033/2004, 16595/2012,
14158/2015, 21482/2015, 21483/2015, 21485/2015, 8903/2016,
14690/2016, 43396/2019, 43573/2019, 49104/2019,
49105/2019 & 49119/2019
AMARJIT SINGH KALRA(DECD.)THR.LRS..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.S. Panwar with Mr. Sunil
Baloni and Ms. Nividita
Panwar, Advocates for
appellant no. 23.
(M): 9312234919
versus
PRAMOD GUPTA(DECD.) LRS.& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht with
Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocates
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Govind
Kumar and Mr. Sachin Bhatt,
Advocates as Amicus Curie
(M): 9958926320
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
counsel for DDA.
(M): 9810962950
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Pranav Jain, Advocate for
respondent nos. 8, 12 to 15.
+ RFA 310/1980 & CM APPLs. 688/2007, 4225/2012,
16594/2012, 14074/2015, 14163/2015, 21478/2015,
21481/2015, 8902/2016, 14691/2016 & 49142/2019
AMARJEET SINGH KALRA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.S. Panwar with Mr. Sunil
Baloni and Ms. Nividita
Panwar, Advocates for
appellant no. 23.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:17.12.2022
11:08:28
(M): 9312234919
versus
PRAMOD GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht with
Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocates
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Govind
Kumar and Mr. Sachin Bhatt,
Advocates as Amicus Curie
(M): 9958926320
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
counsel for DDA.
(M): 9810962950
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Pranav Jain, Advocate for
respondent nos. 8, 12 to 15.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 01.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]
1. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate who is appearing as Amicus in the present matter has brought to the notice of this Court judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and others Vs Pramod Gupta (Smt) (dead) by LRs and others and other connected matters, (2003) 3 SCC 272. He has in particular referred to para 13 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as below:-
"13. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the Reference Court dealing with a reference made to it under Sections Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:17.12.2022 11:08:28 30 and 31(2) and the appellate court dealing with appeals arising out of such decision rendered by the Reference Court, to decide as to who among the claimants, or whether anyone of them at all is entitled to receive the compensation or any portion of it and if so, in what proportion or that any other than those already before the court is entitled to the same. So far as the cases on hand are concerned, having regard to the ramification of the Land Reforms Act on the legality, propriety and the tenability of the various claims, it becomes obligatory to consider each of such claims distinctly. The rejection of any one cannot by itself be a justification for sustaining the claim of the other and if none of the private claimants is found to be legally entitled to the same, the Government or for that matter the local authority concerned may even be the residual beneficiary, entitled to it. The consideration, therefore, cannot be confined to the claimants before the court but the court is obliged to find out who really would be entitled to the same, whether a party before it or not. The Reference Court does not seem to have been alive to its onerous responsibilities in these cases and the High Court having rejected the appeals as having abated had no occasion to advert to the question as to whether the adjudication by the Reference Court was in keeping with the requirements of its obligations and the ultimate decision was in conformity with law. This aspect is noticed only to highlight the serious nature of the various issues involved but omitted to be properly and effectively decided and not to express any opinion on any such claims or questions."
2. Referring the aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel who is Amicus in the present matter, submits that this Court has first to decide as to who among the claimants or whether anyone of them, is entitled to receive the compensation or any portion of it. Thus, he submits that any settlement that may have been arrived at between the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:17.12.2022 11:08:28 parties, cannot be implemented till the issue of entitlement of compensation is decided by this Court.
3. Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate who appears for the appellant is in some personal difficulty today. Therefore, it had been decided by all the parties that a request would be made before this Court today for fixation of a date for arguments on some other date.
4. Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Advocate submits that he is objecting to the submissions as made by the learned Amicus Curiae.
5. Mr. S.S. Panwar appearing for appellant no. 23 submits that appellant no. 23 has not signed the compromise deed/settlement as signed by the other parties. Thus, he submits that appellant no. 23 would pursue the present matter in his own right.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 8, 12 to 15 submits that the matter has already been settled with appellants.
7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of learned Amicus Curiae, this issue shall be considered at the time of hearing.
8. List for hearing on 02.03.2023 at 2:30 pm. MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 1, 2022 c Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:17.12.2022 11:08:28