Delhi District Court
Kusum Lata Singal vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.95/10/08
Kusum Lata Singal ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
ORDER
01.08.2018
1. This common dispose off three applications filed by the petitioner i.e. one application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 and 153 CPC; other application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 141 and 151 CPC and one other application filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 141 and 151 CPC.
2. The facts as stated in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are that the instant case was listed on 06.07.2018 and oral submissions were addressed on behalf of petitioner to the effect of applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as FCTLARR Act) as enforced on 01.01.2014 to impress upon that the Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 is to be governed by provisions of FCTLARR Act. It was also urged that in view of order dated 03.07.2018 as passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5259/2018 and 5266/2018 whereof liberty was granted to the petitioner to urge arguments as aforesaid. The case being LAC/94/10/08 has been treated as lead matter wherein all evidence has been recorded even for other LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 1 of 18 case being LAC/95/10/08. However, in LAC/96/10/06, though PW-1 remains as prime witness, the has filed his testimony in accordance with facts pertinent thereto.
3. It is also stated that the facts in precise are that Notification u/s 4 of LAC Act was made on 12.08.1997 for acquisition of land admeasuring 156 Bigha 15 Biswas at Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi for setting-up of a Sports School Near Ghevra More, Rohtak Road (NH-10), West Delhi, which included petitioner's land admeasuring 20 Bigha 7 Biswas out of Khasras no. 65/16, 65/17 62/23/2, 65/25/1, 65/25/2, 66/20/2 and 66/22/2. Notification u/s 6 of LAC Act was published on 10.09.1997. Thereafter, the Collector passed an Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 on 15.09.1998. Subsequently, possession was taken over. Dissatisfied with the Award, the petitioner filed a reference under Section 18 of LAC Act on 23.10.1998 which was found to be untraceable constraining the petitioner to prefer Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 5783/2005, which was disposed off vide order dated 18.08.2005 partly in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present Reference Petition came to be forwarded by the LAC before this Court. Undisputedly, the petitioner received the compensation under protest but no compensation was ever offered or deposited after enhancement vide judgment dated 19.12.2008. Supplementary Award No. 3A/DCW/98-99 dated 22.09.2005 was passed. During the pendency of this Reference Petition, the compensation awarded vide Award No. 3/DCW/1998- 99 was challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LA.A No. 193/2006 vide judgment dated 19.12.2008 enhanced the compensation under the Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99, which was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 2 of 184. It is also stated that earlier the petitioner filed an application in the present Reference Petition praying to adjudicate the present Reference Petition in terms of provisions of FCTLARR Act. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2016 was pleased to dismiss the said application, inter alia, holding that the Court does not vest with jurisdiction to entertain such application. The petitioner assailed the said order vide CM (Main) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 12.04.2018 permitted the petitioner to approach the writ court for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition (Civil) before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Honble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in said Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 5259/2018 and 5266/2018 was pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to urge arguments pertaining to Section 24(2) of FCTLARR Act before this Court.
5. It is also stated that to adjudicate upon the issue pertaining to Section 24(2) of the FCTLARR Act, the petitioner and the Hon'ble Court must be mandatorily aware of certain facts, inter alia (A) details of beneficiaries alongwith their respective landholdings with particular Khasra Nos. and admeasurments in terms of Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99; (B) percentage of landholdings individually by such beneficiaries; (C) amount of compensation assessed in terms of Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 as payable to such beneficiaries and whether LAC has deposited compensation in the accounts of said beneficiaries qua their respective landholdings, if so, on which date and by which mod; (D) compensation assessed in terms of order dated 19.12.2008 as passed in LA A. No. 193/2006 or any other judicial order and whether LAC has deposited compensation calculated in terms thereof in the accounts of said beneficiaries qua their respective landholdings, if so, on which date and by which mode; etc. LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 3 of 18
6. A perusal of the proceedings in the instant Reference Petition would indicate that the aforesaid queries were non material prior in time, which was not highlighted earlier in the present Reference Petition. The aforesaid queries in the present given circumstances have become material and relevant for just and proper adjudication of the present Reference Petition. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Court would also be devoid of material particulars to decide the present Reference Petition in terms of Section 24 of the FCTLARR Act.
7. It is also stated that FCTLARR Act came into force on 01.01.2014 and Section 24 of the FCTLARR Act became applicable to the present case of the petitioner inasmuch as the Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 dated 15.09.1998 read with Supplementary Award NO. 3A/DCW/98-99 dated 22.09.2005 under the LAC Act were made 'five years or more prior' to commencement of the FCTLARR Act (i.e. prior to 01.01.2014) but 'compensation has not been paid' to the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners u/s 31 LAC Act had accepted the compensation under protest with statutory right u/s 18 of LAC Act to challenge the said Award. The interpretation to 'compensation has not been paid' includes compensation 'received under protest' and any other interpretation would render the effect of beneficial FCTLARR Act nugatory. Provisions of beneficial legislation must be read in favour of persons for whom the legislation extends the benefits and any other contrary reading would frustrate the object and purpose of beneficial legislation. Furthermore, the compensation stood enhanced in 2008 by virtue of order dated 19.12.2008, which enhanced compensation was never offered by LAC to the petitioner nor deposited by LAC in terms of Section 31 of LAC Act. Such enhanced compensation as fixed judicially since having not LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 4 of 18 been paid or offered to the petitioner, accordingly, it amounts to 'compensation not paid\ thereby attracting the 'compensation received under protest' in terms of Award cannot be treated final whence this Reference Court is seized of the dispute qua fixing quantum of 'compensation', which is yet to be ascertained though determined vide order dated 19.12.2008 supra, which has neither been paid nor offered to the petitioner. Therefore, in petitioner's peculiar case 'compensation not paid' is evident whereof Section 24 of FCTLARR Act becomes applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is undoubtedly true that acquisition enactments are expropriatory legislation, and must be construed to the benefit of the landowners and must also be given liberal construction to implement the legislative intent and thereby must be strictly construed in favour of the landowners and against the State. It is no longer res integra that provisions of a beneficial legislation must be put to best benefit of its beneficiaries, in the instant case, the petitioner. By virtue of provisions of FCTLARR Act various benefits have inured in favour of the petitioner and against LAC and the petitioner should not have been deprived of such benefits. Furthermore, since gaining alleged possession, the Government has not utilised till date any part of the acquired land for setting up of a Sports School.
8. It is also stated that whenever matter relating to payment of higher compensation arose, the same has been interpreted in favour of the landowners so as to include the subsequent amendments that were brought about in the LAC Act to pay higher compensation, thereby removing the discrimination as exists then by holding that the compensation payable for acquisitions under the LAC Act would be directly applicable with all its subsequent amendments. It is in this manner that the LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 5 of 18 legislation was interpreted to be a beneficial piece of legislation and was, therefore, extended in order to avoid discrimination.
9. It is also stated that in view of the non-payment of compensation, which compensation is under challenge before this Reference Court, and in view thereof the possession of the land is disputable and cannot be termed as legal possession. Even otherwise, since the date of alleged award, the government has failed to utilize the said land for the purpose it was acquired for, namely, Sports School.
10. It is further stated that the term 'compensation' has not been defined under the LAC Act or FCTLARR Act. However, the term 'compensation' has been used in various sections of LAC Act and FCTLARR Act. Under the LAC Act the term 'compensation' when in read in reference to Section 11 and Section 26 of LAC Act, the same signifies that 'compensation' deems to achieve finality only on adjudication through the process of law where the judgment pronounced under Section 26 replaces the Award passed under Section 11 LAC Act. In the present case, though such judicial determination occurred vide judgment dated 19.12.2008 but no such compensation was either offered or deposited and in view thereof, the term 'compensation' as used in Section 24 and especially proviso to Section 24(2),it is easily discernible that 'compensation' has not been paid to the petitioner herein, which entitles the petitioner to invoke Section 24(2) of the FCTLARR Act.
11. It is also stated that as per Section 24 read with Section 105 of FCTLARR Act as enforced on 01.01.2014 the instant case is liable to be heard and decided as per the provisions of FCTLARR Act.
LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 6 of 1812. The petitioner has referred to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. - 2014 (3) SCC 183 wherein Section 24 of the FCTLARR has been interpreted. The petitioner also referred to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs & Ors - 2018 (2) SCALE and submitted that it has become imperative upon the petitioner to prefer the instant application seeking amendment of Reference Petition, which is occasioned in view of the liberty granted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.07.2018 whereof liberty has been granted to the petitioner to urge grounds for compensation in terms of Section 24(2) of FCTLARR Act before this Court. It is also stated that petitioner wishes to amend the Reference Petition by adding two additional paragraphs and also wishes to amend the prayer clause.
13. It is also stated that issue raised through the instant application goes to the root of the matter and is a legal issue, which requires adjudication before proceeding further in the instant case. The amendments prayed for in the present application are necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties. Inspite due diligence, the plaintiff could not have incorporated the facts as sought to be included hereof. The controversy in dispute will be enlightened by the proposed amendment without causing serious prejudice to the respondents. The proposed amendment does not alter / change the nature and is necessiated on account of new facts faht have arisen during the pendency of the instant proceedings. The amendment sought would avoid multiplicity of proceedings inter se the parties hereto and shall ultimately sub-serve justice. The LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 7 of 18 amendment sought is in furtherance to the averments already made. It is also stated that present application should be allowed in favour of the petitioner as the same does not prejudice the respondents. However, in contradistinction, if the present application is not allowed and the petitioner is not allowed to amend the prayers alongwith the pleadings, actions of the respondents would continue to result in irreparable harm and humongous injury to the petitioner which would not be possible to compensate the petitioner by way of damages and a decision on the said issue is imperative for proper and final adjudication of the dispute as averred in the reference petition. The petitioner seeks amendment of Reference Petition.
14. Now coming to the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 141 and 151 CPC for re-call of PW-1. It is stated that the instant case was listed on 06.07.2018 and oral submissions were addressed on behalf of petitioner to the effect of applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as FCTLARR Act) as enforced on 01.01.2014 to impress upon that the Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 is to be governed by provisions of FCTLARR Act. It was also urged that in view of order dated 03.07.2018 as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5259/2018 and 5266/2018 whereof liberty was granted to the petitioner to urge arguments. The case being LAC/94/10/08 is being treated as lead matter wherein all evidence has been recorded and even for case being LAC/95/10/08. However, in LAC/96/10/06 though PW-1 remains as prime witness, he has filed his testimony in accordance with facts pertinent thereto.
LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 8 of 1815. It is stated that it has become imperative upon the petitioner to prefer the instant application seeking recall of PW-1 Anand Prakash Singal to give additional/further evidence, inter alia, on the aspect of base date wherefrom the compensation is to be calculated in terms of FCTALRR Act and also to depose the market value and further testify the potentiality of the acquired land subsequent thereto. The testimony pertain to matter in question, especially to effectively adjudicate / decide the issue of application of Section 24(2) FCTLARR Act qua compensation that should be awarded to the petitioner and relates to the 'matter in question'. Hence with such bonafides, the petitioner prefers the present application.
16. It is prayed that PW-1 Sh. Anand Prakash Singal be recalled and time be granted to file his additional evidentiary affidavit alongwith documents relevant thereto and passing of Judgment be adjourned till disposal of the present application.
17. In the application filed under Order XI Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 141 and 151 CPC the facts as stated in the applications VI Rule 17 CPC and application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC have been reiterated. It is stated that in the view of peculiar facts and circumstances, it has become imperative upon the petitioner to prefer the instant application seeking leave to deliver the under written interrogatories for the examination of LAC to deliver material particulars alongwith supporting documents. The interrogatories as sought to be delivered hereof pertain to matter in question, especially to effectively adjudicate / decide the issue of application of Section 24(2) FCTLARR Act qua compensation that should be awarded to the petitioner. Furthermore, interrogatories have close connection with the LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 9 of 18 'matter in question' and seek better particulars qua facts pertaining hereto. Furthermore, these interrogatories are served at this stage in view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.07.2018 whereof liberty is granted to the petitioner to urge grounds for compensation in terms of Section 24(2) of the FCTLARR Act before this Court. Furthermore, the onus lies upon the LAC since petitioner does not have any control, authority or possession of particulars / documents sought by way of interrogatories hereof. These interrogatories are to the aid of the Hon'ble Court for effectively adjudicating the issue involved in the present lis and would save precious judicial time. Hence, with such bonafides, the petitioner prefers the present application.
18. It is also stated that interrogatories on behalf of petitioner pertaining to Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 and Supplementary Award No. 3A/DCW/1998-99 for examination of concerned LAC, being respondent No.1 are as follows:-
A. Render particulars of beneficiaries alongwith their respective landholdings with particular Khasra numbers and admeasurements in terms of Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99; and B. Detail out the percentage of landholdings individually by such beneficiaries; and C. Whether compensation in terms of Award No. 3/DCW/1998- 99 and Supplementary Award No. 3A/DCW/1998-99 has been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries qua their respective landholdings and if so, provide details of the amount deposited, date on which compensation was deposited, by which mode and particulars of account details, for each beneficiary.LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 10 of 18
D. Whether compensation in terms of Award No. Award No. 3/DCW/1998-99 and Supplementary Award No. 3A/DCW/1998-99 has been enhanced by virtue of Order dated 19.12.2008 as passed in LA. A. 193/2006 or by any other judicial order(s) and if so, provide details of when it was enhanced and by what rate together with details of such judicial order(s); and E. Whether compensation calculated in terms of order dated 19.12.2008 or any other judicial order(s) has been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries qua their respective landholdings, and ifso, provide details of the amount deposited, date on which compensation was deposited, by which mode and particulars of account details, for each beneficary.
19. Petitioner seeks leave be granted to deliver the interrogatories against LAC and direct LAC to deliver answer to said interrogatories on affidavit with supporting documents, as per law and passing of Judgment be adjourned till disposal of the present application.
20. I have heard Sh. Kamal Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I have also gone through the Judgment in case of Abdul Rehman & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. - (2012) 11 SCC 341; Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. - 243 (2017) DLT 168; and Jatinder Singh Bhatia Vs. State & Ors. - AIR 2009 Delhi 54.
21. Through the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the petitioner with to amend reference under Section 18 referred LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 11 of 18 by the Land Acquisition Collector by adding para 17A, 17B and prayer clause as mentioned in the application. Fundamentally the petitioner is attempting to invoke the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013 thereby wish to amend the reference to attract Section 24 of the FCTLARR Act.
22. The Apex Court in the case of 'Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran & Another', AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2302, in para no. 7 held as under:
"It is well established that the reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and that Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullic Bahadur v. Secy. Of State, AIR 1930 PC 84. This was a case where the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the measurements of the land given in the award. Before the reference Court, the claimant raised objection regarding the measurements of the land and sought for fresh measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High Court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the claimed raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thus:
"Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arise when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter" referred and the Court has no power to determine or consider any thing beyond it."LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 12 of 18
23. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 'Ram Prakash Agarwal and Another vs. Hari Prakash Agarwal and Another' (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 has held as under in para 24, 26, 27, 28.4 and 28.5 as under:
"24. The said case is required to be examined from another angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did not make any application either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the 1894 Act to the Land Acquisition Collector. The jurisdiction of the Reference Court, vis-a- vis "persons interrested" has been explained by this Curt in Ishyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry, holding that the Reference Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application of pro interesee suo, or in the nature thereof. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 304, para 19) "19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the awrd made by the Collector."
"19. ...... It is not within his domain to entertain any application of pro interesse suo or in the nature thereof."
The plea of the appellant therein, stating that the title dispute be directed to be decided by the Reference court itself, since the appellant was not a person interested in the award, was rejected by this Court, observing that the Reference Court does not have the power to enter into an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
26. In Prayad Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 565, para 7) "7. It is well established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisitive Officer and that the civil court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objectins referred to it. The Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it."
27. It is evident from the above, that a person who has not made an application before the Land LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 13 of 18 Acquisition Collector, for making a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the 1894 Act, cannot get himself impleaded directly before the Reference Court. 28.4. Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit.
28.5. A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 30 of the 1894 Act, but cannot make an application for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court."
24. Now applying the principles of the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgments to the facts and circumstances of the present case, reference Court has no jurisdiction and powers to amend the reference referred by the Land Acquisition Collector. The reference Court cannot widen scope of its jurisdiction because reference court has to answer the reference. I have gone through the Judgment Abdul Rehman & Ors. (supra). This judgment is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as present is not a civil suit but it is a reference under Section 18 LA Act and applying the principles discussed hereinabove in the case of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra) and Ram Prakash Agarwal (supra) the reference application referred by Land Acquisition Collector cannot be amended. Therefore, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 and 153 CPC is dismissed.
25. Now coming to the second application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for leading evidence by the petitioner, it may be mentioned that reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 received by this Court on 02.07.2008, the issues were framed on 24.07.2009. The petitioner was granted opportunity for about more than 2 years and consequently evidence was closed vide order dated 19.09.2011. However, petitioner approached LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 14 of 18 Hon'ble High Court vide CM (M) bearing No. 1237/2011. Vide order dated 21.10.2011 subject to payment of costs opportunity to lead evidence granted by Hon'ble High Court. But still petitioner did not complete the evidence and further taken 5 years and finally Court closed the evidence on 11.02.2016. Thereafter, the respondents led their evidence, which was closed on 30.03.2017 and since then the case is at the stage of final arguments.
26. In my opinion, since this Court has no powers and jurisdiction to amend the reference, therefore, on this ground the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead further evidence because already sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioner. Moreover, against the order dated 19.09.2011 vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed, the petitioner preferred a CM (M) bearing No. 1237/2011 and vide order dated 21.10.2011 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur granted one more last opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost. I have considered Judgment of Jatinder Singh Bhatia's case (supra). It is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. However, in this judgment the conduct of the petitioner is covered as mentioned in para 26. Therefore, the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is also dismissed.
27. Now coming to the application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC, again an attempt has been made by the petitioner to invoke the powers of the Court which are not vested. As per Section 18 of the LA Act, this Court has no power to examine or direct the Land Acquisition Collector to examine the interrogatories put forward by the petitioner by way of this application. I have gone through the Judgment of Transport LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 15 of 18 Corporation of India Ltd. (supra). This Court has no jurisdiction to wide the scope of reference. Therefore, interrogatories at this stage to invoke provisions of new Act is not permissible and LAC is not having any jurisdiction to reconsider the present Award by way of interrogatories. Therefore, I find no merit in the application and same is also hereby dismissed. Therefore, I find no merit in the application and same is also hereby dismissed.
28. It is pertinent to mention here that reference under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 was received by this Court on 20.11.2006, issues were framed on 11.08.2008 and the petitioner was granted opportunities for about more than 7 years to complete the evidence. In between the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC on 04.06.2014 and the said application was decided vide order dated 06.11.2015. The petitioner was again given several opportunities and ultimately PE was closed on 11.02.2016. Therefore, the respondents led their evidence and closed on 30.03.2016. The petitioner was granted opportunities to conclude the arguments on 30.03.2016 but instead of concluding the final arguments, the petitioner filed and application under Section 151 CPC. The said application was under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC read with 4 th Schedule of FCTLARR Act. The application was dismissed vide detailed order. The petitioner preferred a CM (Main) before Hon'ble High Court and the proceedings remained stayed till the pendency of said CM (Main) before the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba vide order dated 12.04.2018 allowed the withdrawal of the said CM (Main) petition and an opportunity was granted to approach under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief with respect to FCTLARR Act. The petitioner LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 16 of 18 approached the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was listed before Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sistani and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and vide order dated 03.07.2018 allowed the withdrawal of the Writ Petition but liberty was granted to raise grounds pertaining to enhancement of compensation under the new Act before the reference Court. Final arguments were heard on 06.07.2018 and in view of above order parties were granted liberty to file written submissions till 20.07.2018. In between abovesaid three applications have been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner wish to invoke the jurisdiction of FCTLARR Act although he had filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 on 23.10.1998.
29. The petitioner bent upon delaying the proceedings of the present reference and now has taken a plea of invoking new Act. It is pertinent to mention here that all the proceedings initiated under the old Act, the reference Court act under the old Act and the compensation and market value determined by the Collector under the old Act. The most important and vital is that reference Court is functioning under Section 2(d) of the old Act. The new Act envisage "authority" under Section 51. The present reference Court is not established by the appropriate Government under the new Act. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction, powers and authority under the new Act. The plea of the petitioner is imaginary without any substance that automatically present reference ceases to be under old Act and this reference court can invoke provisions of new Act automatically. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner challenged the order of this Court whereby categorically it has been held that this Court cannot invoke any provisions of new Act. The petitioner LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 17 of 18 approached Hon'ble High Court but no relief granted and CM (Main) got withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the writ jurisdiction before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court but no relief granted. The order dated 19.04.2016 of this Court has attained finality. Now again only with an object and motive to further delay the proceedings, these three applications have been filed. The petitioner has been indulging in misuse of process of law throughout the proceedings and now again a new attempt is made to defeat the course of justice. In my considered opinion all the three applications are vexatious and without any jurisdiction and sheer misuse of process of law.
30. It is pertinent to mention here that present reference referred by LAC office after a gap of 10 years and now petitioner is delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other by filing several applications. It is not out of place to mention here that petitioner also adopted another technique to delay the proceedings i.e. changing of the Counsel. Sh. I.S. Dahiya represented the petitioner from July 2008 to 19.09.2011. Thereafter, Sh. Sudhir Gupta and Sh. Naresh Gupta represented till 22.05.2014. Thereafter, Sh. Manish Jain represented till 08.04.2016 and now present Counsel Sh. Kamal Bansal.
31. On the basis of above observation and discussion all the three applications are dismissed with individual costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be deposited with the Website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within two weeks.
Announced in the open court today on 1st August, 2018.
(Sanjay Kumar) Addl. District Judge-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi LAC/95/10/08 Kusum Lata Singal Vs. UOI Page 18 of 18