Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.

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 '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.

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.

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 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.