REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7301-7302 OF 2003

Delhi Development Authority ……Appellant

Versus

S.S. Aggarwal and others ……Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2004

Union of India ……Appellants

Versus

S.S. Aggarwal and others ……Respondents

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6264-6265        OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18056-18057 of 2003)

S.S. Aggarwal and others  etc. etc. ……Appellants

Versus

Union of India and another ……Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 18056-18057 of 2003.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 21.2.2003 of the  

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeals preferred by  

two groups of persons i.e., S.S. Aggarwal and others and Om Prakash and  

others under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the  

Act”)  were  allowed  and  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  fixed  by  

Additional  District  Judge,  Delhi  (hereinafter  described as,  `the  Reference  

Court’) was enhanced from Rs.102/- to Rs.7,390/- per square yard.   

3. By notification dated 6.1.1995 issued under Section 4(1) read with  

Section 17(1) of the Act, the Government of National Capital Territory of  

Delhi proposed the acquisition of 27 bighas 5 biswas land situated at village  

Jasola.  After 4 days, the declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act.   

2

4. In  response  to  the  notice  issued  under  Section  9  of  the  Act,  the  

landowners filed three claim petitions through the same Advocate, namely,  

Ch. Sawrup Singh.  One of the petitions was filed by Kishan Lal and 13  

others.  The other was filed by S.K. Sarogi and another and the third was  

filed by Mangla Ram and 3 others. They pleaded that keeping in view the  

prevailing market  rates,  they be paid compensation at least  at  the rate of  

Rs.4,000/- per square yard.   In support of their claim, the landowners relied  

upon the allotments made by the Delhi Development Authority (for short,  

`the DDA’) at a concessional rate of Rs.2,200/- per square yard.

5. During  the  pendency  of  the  matter  before  the  Land  Acquisition  

Collector,  Delhi,  Mangla  Ram  and  3  others  executed  Assignment  Deed  

dated 21.9.1995 in favour of Om Prakash, Phire Ram and Vinod Kumar (all  

sons of Ch. Swarup Singh, Advocate, who was representing the landowners  

before  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector).   The  relevant  portions  of  the  

assignment deed are extracted below:

“WHEREAS,  the  Vendors  are  the  actual  owners  of  the  Acquired  Land  Total  Measuring  8  Bighas  and  5  Biswas,  in  Khasra No. 133 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Jasola,  Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

That the above said land has been notified under Section 4 of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 6.1.1995, and declaration  under  Section  6  and  notification  under  17(1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, has also been issued on 10th Jan. 1993  

3

but  the  compensation  in  respect  of  said  land  has  not  been  passed by Govt. to the Vendors so far.

AND WHEREAS, the possession of the said land has also been  taken by the Govt. on 22nd February, 1995.

AND WHEREAS, the Vendors have willingly agreed to sell  transfer the said compensation right of the said land measuring  8 bighas 5 biswas, in Khasra No. 133, of village Jasola, Tehsil  Mehrauli,  New Delhi,  whatsoever  to  be  settled  by  the  Land  Acquisition Collector in award or by the court in reference or in  revisions or appeals of the same in High Courts with all rights  to  recover  and  receive  the  same  from  the  concerned  authorities/deptts. for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- [Rs. Four lacs and  eighty thousand only] and the Vendees have agreed to purchase  the same for said amount.

The  entire  consideration  amount  of  Rs.  4,80,000/-  [Rs  Four lacs and eighty thousand only], has already been received  in  advance  by  the  Vendors  from  the  Vendees  [the  receipt  whereof, the Vendors admit and acknowledge] in full and final  settlement.

NOW  THIS  ASSIGMENT  DEED  WITNESSETH  AS  UNDER:

1. That  the  Vendors  do hereby  sell,  transfer,  convey  and  assign the compensation rights, whatsoever to be settled by the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  inAward  or  by  the  courts  in  reference perceptions, revisions as sale etc. of the same to be  filed in Delhi High Court and other higher courts with rights to  receive  and  recover  the  same  from  the  concerned  authorities/Deptts.  with  each  and  every  rights  which  vest  in  their  names  as  towards  the  above  said  award  of  the  Land  Acquisition Collector and in reference,  revisions, appeals etc.  upto the Vendees.

2. That the Vendors admit that they have no right left with  the compensation right to be settled in above said award or in  reference, revisions or appeals etc. and the same has become  

4

property of the Vendees, with the rights to receive and recover  the same.

3. That  the  Vendors  admit  that  the  Vendees  are  fully  entitled  to  substitute  themselves  before  Land  Acquisition  Collector  in  Award/reference  as  mentioned  above  and  to  conduct the same.  The vendors have handed over and delivered  the  notices  and  other  acquisition  documents  and  all  other  relevant papers/documents to the Vendees.

4. That  the  Vendors  have  assured  the  Vendees  that  they  have not entered into any agreement with anyone else for the  said  transfer  of  the  said  compensation  right  to  be  settled  in  award  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  and  references,  revisions, appeals, etc. and they further admit and declare that if  found and proved otherwise, then the Vendors shall be liable  and  responsible  to  make  good  the  losses  suffered  by  the  Vendees and to repay the said received amount with costs and  damages to the Vendees.  The Vendees then shall be entitled to  recover the said amount from the Vendors, their properties both  moveable and immovable.

5. That the Vendors declare that the Deed which is executed  by the Vendors in favour of the Vendees for that they are fully  entitled  to  execute  the  same  without  consent  of  any  other  person/s are entitled owners of the same, they transferred their  rights,  titles and interests  and claims in the same for ever in  favour of the said Vendees.  The heirs and successors of the  Vendors will have no right to challenge it.”

6. The other landowners appear to have executed a similar assignment  

deed in favour of S.S. Aggarwal  and 5 others,  who are appellants  in the  

appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.18056/2003.

5

7. Although, the assignees were very much aware that claims filed by the  

landowners  were  pending  before  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  and  in  

terms  of  paragraph  3  of  the  assignment  deeds,  they  could  apply  for  

substitution,  all  of  them  deliberately  kept  quiet  and  did  not  produce  

assignment  deeds  before  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  who  ultimately  

passed award dated 11.10.1995 and fixed market value of the acquired land  

at the rate of Rs.98/- per square yard.   

8. After announcement of the award, S.S. Aggarwal and 5 others filed an  

application under Section 18 of the Act for re-fixation of market value of the  

acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square yard by asserting that they  

fall in the category of interested persons.  Similar application was filed by  

Om Prakash and two others. The Collector did not make any inquiry on the  

issue  of  locus  of  S.S.  Aggarwal  and  others  to  claim  compensation  and  

referred the matter to the Court.  The Reference Court too did not inquire  

about the entitlement of S.S. Aggarwal and others to claim compensation  

and disposed of the reference by fixing market value of the acquired land at  

the rate of Rs.1,02,000/- per bigha.   

9. Feeling  dissatisfied  with  the  determination  made  by  the  Reference  

Court, S.S. Aggarwal and 5 others filed an appeal under Section 54 of the  

6

Act  and  claimed  that  even  though  they  were  entitled  to  enhanced  

compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha, but due to paucity of  

funds, they were limiting their claim to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.  Similar  

appeal was filed by Om Prakash and 2 others.

10. After four and a half years of filing the appeals, S.S. Aggarwal and 5  

others  filed  C.M.  No.1340  of  2002  under  Order  VI  Rule  17  read  with  

Section 151 CPC for amendment of the memo of appeal so as to enable them  

to  claim  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.7,000/-  per  square  yard.  

Simultaneously, they deposited court fee of Rs.4,98,000/- by assuming that  

the High Court will necessarily accept their prayer for amendment.  Notice  

of the application was given to the counsel representing the Union of India  

on 5.9.2002, but no order was passed granting or refusing the prayer for  

amendment. The appeals were finally disposed of by the Division Bench of  

the  High Court  vide  judgment  dated  21.2.2003 and  market  value  of  the  

acquired land was fixed at Rs.7,390/- per square yard.  By an order of the  

same date, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed C.M. No.1340 of  

2002 in the following terms:

“By  this  application  amendment  has  been  sought  to  the  memorandum  of  appeal.   Such  like  applications  have  been  decided in a number of cases by this Court.

7

Amendment  to  the  memorandum  of  appeal  to  claim  higher  amount of compensation has been sought on the ground that  while  filing  appeal,  due  to  paucity  of  funds,  the  appellants  could not claim proper amount of compensation though in the  reference higher amount of compensation had been claimed by  them.

Considering  the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  and the  principle  that  a  claimant  must  be  paid  fair  amount  of  compensation  in  case  his  property  is  acquired  for  public  purpose by the State and relying upon the ratio of the decisions  of the Supreme Court in  Harcharan Vs. State of Haryana AIR  1983  SC  43;  Bhag  Singh  &  Ors.  Vs.  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737;  Scheduled Caste Co-operative  Land  Owing  Society  Ltd.  Bhatinda  vs.  Union  of  India  and  Others (1991) 1 SCC 174; Chand Kaur & Others Vs. Union of  India (1994) 4 SCC 663; Gokal vs. State of Haryana AIR 1992  S.C. 150 and  Buta Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India  (1995) 5 SCC 284 the prayer made in the application is allowed  subject  to  the  condition  of  the  appellant  making  good  the  deficiency in court  fee within a period of four weeks,  if  not  already made good.”

11. Ms. Gita Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of  

India assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the High  

Court committed serious error by entertaining the amendment application  

filed after a long time gap of four and a half years.  She relied upon the  

judgments of this Court in Buta Singh v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 284  

and Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1 and argued that the  

High Court should not have granted the prayer for amendment because the  

applicants had not given any tangible explanation for the long delay of four  

8

and a half years.  Ms. Luthra further argued that the High Court was not  

justified in disposing of the appeals without first deciding the amendment  

application  and  giving  an  opportunity  to  the  acquiring  authority  and the  

ultimate  beneficiary  i.e.  the  DDA  to  contest  the  prayer  made  by  S.S.  

Aggarwal and others for fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per  

square yard.  Learned senior counsel then argued that the assignment deeds  

executed  by  the  landowners  constituted  the  best  piece  of  evidence  for  

determination of market value but the assignees deliberately withheld the  

same from the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court and the High  

Court  and this,  by itself,  should be treated as  a ground for remitting the  

matter  to  the Reference Court.   Ms.  Luthra further  argued that  the High  

Court committed serious error by awarding compensation over and above  

what was claimed in the amendment application and that too without taking  

into consideration the fact that Om Prakash and others had not even filed an  

application for amendment of the memo of appeal.

12. Shri  Amarendra  Sharan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

DDA argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the  

assignees  had  deliberately  kept  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  the  

Reference Court  and the High Court  in dark about  the assignment  deeds  

under which they claim to have purchased the right to get compensation by  

9

paying a meager sum of Rs.58/- per square yard to the landowners.  Shri  

Sharan referred to Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act and argued that  

the assignment deeds are liable to be treated as void because the same are  

not  only  opposed  to  public  policy,  but  have  the  effect  of  defeating  the  

objects  of  the  Delhi  Lands  (Restrictions  on  Transfer)  Act,  1972,  which  

prohibit transfer of land after issue of notification under Section 4(1).  In  

support of this argument, Shri Amarendra Sharan relied upon the judgments  

of this Court in Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (1991) 3  

SCC  67,  Murlidhar  Dayandeo  Kesekar  v.  Vishwanath  Pandu  Barde  

(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 549,  Central Inland Water Transport Corporation  

v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156 and  Jayamma v. Maria Bai  

(2004) 7 SCC 459.   Shri Sharan lastly submitted that the landowners are  

entitled to just and reasonable compensation as of right and the assignees  

cannot  take  advantage  of  their  better  financial  position  to  unduly  enrich  

themselves by getting huge compensation.   

13. Shri  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  S.S.  

Aggarwal and other assignees argued that the DDA does not have the locus  

to question the assignment deeds by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution  

and Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act because it was not a party before  

the Reference Court.  Shri Mehta emphasised that the assignment deeds are  

1

registered  documents  which  were  executed  by  the  landowners  with  full  

knowledge of the consequence of assignment and it is not open to the Union  

of  India  and  the  DDA  to  indirectly  question  the  transaction  involving  

transfer of the right to receive compensation.  Shri Mehta relied upon the  

judgments  in  Dawson v.  Great  Northern and City  Railway Company  

(1905) 1 KB 260,  Sunrise  Associates v.  Government of  NCT of Delhi  

(2006)  5  SCC 603 and unreported  judgment  of  the  Delhi  High Court  in  

Appeal No.140 of 1972-Laxmi Narayan v. Union of India and another  

decided on 24.11.1977 and argued that the right to receive compensation is  

in the nature of property right and the same can be assigned by the owner of  

the property.  Shri Mehta strongly supported the order passed by the High  

Court granting leave for amendment of the claim by pointing out that the  

landowners had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and in the  

applications filed under Section 18, the assignees had clearly indicated that  

market value of the acquired land is at least Rs.10,000/- but due to paucity of  

funds, they had restricted the claim to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.

14. We have considered the respective submissions in the back drop of  

the fact that even though in terms of the assignment deeds, S.S. Aggarwal  

and others became entitled to seek substitution before the Land Acquisition  

Collector,  they neither  sought impleadment  in the award proceedings nor  

1

produced the assignment deeds to show that the landowners had transferred  

the right to receive compensation.

15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the assignees could not offer any  

tangible  explanation  as  to  why  his  clients  chose  to  keep  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court in dark about  

the execution of the assignment deeds by the landowners.  Therefore, it is  

reasonable  to  presume  that  they  had  done  so  deliberately  and  the  only  

possible reason for this  could be to avoid a proper scrutiny by the Land  

Acquisition  Collector  and  two  judicial  forums  about  their  entitlement  to  

receive compensation at a rate higher than Rs.58/- per square yard paid to  

the landowners.  If the assignment deeds had been produced before the Land  

Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court, either of them could have held  

an inquiry and given an opportunity to the landowners and/or assignees to  

explain the position.  By withholding the assignment deeds, the assignees  

succeeded in avoiding proper scrutiny of their claim for compensation at the  

hands of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the High  

Court.

16. In the aforesaid scenario, it  will be just and proper to set aside the  

impugned judgment  and remit  the  case  to  the  Reference  Court  for  fresh  

1

determination  of  the  amount  of  compensation  payable  to  the  landowner  

and/or  assignee  after  giving  them  reasonable  opportunity  of  adducing  

evidence in support of their respective cases.

17. We also find merit in the submission of Ms. Gita Luthra that the High  

Court committed serious error by entertaining and allowing the amendment  

application filed by S.S. Aggarwal  and others.  What has surprised us is that  

the  High Court  first  decided the  appeals  filed  by  the  assignees  and then  

disposed of the amendment application and that too without going through  

the records. If this was not so, there was no occasion for the High Court to  

incorporate the condition of making good the deficiency in court fee.  By  

this process, the Union of India and the DDA were deprived of an important  

opportunity to make a request to the High Court to remit the case to the  

Reference Court or at least allow them to adduce evidence on the issue of  

correct market value of the acquired land.  Another grave error committed  

by  the  High  Court  in  this  regard  was  that  it  allowed  the  amendment  

application without even adverting to the issue of unexplained delay of 4 and  

half years.  

1

18. In  Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (supra), this Court considered  

the  legality  and  propriety  of  granting  prayer  for  amendment  in  a  case  

somewhat similar to the present one and observed:

“Delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings  would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an  application for amendment  of the pleadings.  The High Court  neither  assigned  sufficient  or  cogent  reasons  nor  applied  its  mind  as  regards  the  relevant  factors  while  allowing  the said  application  for  amendment.  It  has  also  not  been  taken  into  consideration that the application for amendment of pleadings  might not have been maintainable in view of statutory interdict  contained in  sub-section (2)  of  Section 25 of  the Act,  if  the  same was applicable.

In  Anoop Singh whereupon reliance  has  been placed  by Mr  Salve,  the  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  did  not  have  any  occasion  to  consider  that  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Krishi  Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal and B.V. Reddy which,  it will bear repetition to state, are authorities for the proposition  that  once  it  is  held  that  Section  25(2)  of  the  Act  would  be  attracted in a given case, the parties are estopped and precluded  from claiming  any  amount  higher  than  that  claimed  in  their  claim petition before the Collector. An observation made to the  effect  that  an  application  under  Order  6  Rule  17  would  be  maintainable  having  regard  to  Section  53  of  the  Act,  with  utmost  respect,  does  not  constitute  a  binding  precedent.  No  ratio  has  been laid  down therein  and the  observations  made  therein are without any discussion. Furthermore no reason has  been assigned in support of the said proposition of law.

In Harcharan also this Court did not address the question as to  whether Order 6 Rule 17 would be applicable in relation to the  original claim petition or memo of appeal.

It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also  the  reference  was  amended.  Mr  Rao  pointed  out  that  the  necessary amendments have been carried out in the application  for reference or memorandum of appeal. In terms of Order 6  

1

Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such amendments are  required to be carried out in the pleadings by a party which has  obtained leave to amend his pleadings within the time granted  therefor and if no time was specified then within fourteen days  from  the  date  of  passing  of  the  order.  The  consequence  of  failure  to  amend  the  pleadings  within  the  period  specified  therein as laid down in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code is that the  party shall not be permitted to amend its pleadings thereafter  unless the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute that  such an order extending the time specified in Order 6 Rule 18  has not been passed.”

19. In the result, the appeals are disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The  impugned  judgment  as  also  the  one  passed  by  the  

Reference Court are set aside.

(ii) The  matter  is  remitted  to  the  Reference  Court  for  fresh  

determination of the compensation payable to the landowners  

and/or assignees.  While doing so, the Reference Court should  

first  decide  the  issue  of  locus  of  the  assignees  to  claim  

compensation.  If it is held that the assignees are entitled to step  

into the shoes of the landowners, then the Reference Court shall  

consider  the  value  of  the  land  mentioned  in  the  assignment  

deeds and  decide  what  compensation  should  be  paid  for  

the acquired land.  

(iii) The Reference  Court  shall  give opportunity  to  the  parties  to  

lead additional evidence in support of their respective cases.

1

(iv) In view of the law laid down in Delhi Development Authority  

v. Bhola Nath Sharma (2011) 2 SCC 54, the DDA shall be  

entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Reference Court  

and raise objections against the claim made by the assignees for  

payment of compensation.  The DDA shall also be entitled to  

raise all other legally permissible objections to contest the claim  

of the assignees.

20. Since the case is sufficiently old, we direct the Reference Court to  

decide the matter within a maximum period of one year from the date of  

receipt/production of copy of this judgment.

.…..………..….………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

…………….…..…..…… …………..J.

[Asok Kumar Ganguly] New Delhi August 02, 2011.

1