Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and the Reference Court award, remitting the case to the Reference Court for fresh determination, holding that the assignees had not been properly impleaded and that the amendment of the appeal was improperly entertained.

Summary

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the original landowners had filed claims for Rs.4,000 per square yard. During the proceedings the landowners executed assignment deeds transferring their compensation rights to assignees (S.S. Aggarwal and others, Om Prakash and others). The assignees applied under Section 18 for re‑fixation of market value but did not produce the assignment deeds or seek impleadment, and later sought to amend their appeal after a four‑and‑a‑half‑year delay. The Delhi High Court entertained the amendment and enhanced the market value, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by allowing the amendment without proper scrutiny, by ignoring the unexplained delay, and by depriving the Union of India and DDA of an opportunity to contest the assignees’ entitlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court judgment and the Reference Court award and remitted the matter to the Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation, first deciding the locus of the assignees.

Issues considered

Whether the assignees, having executed assignment deeds, were entitled to claim compensation in place of the original landowners without being impleaded or producing the deeds.
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the amendment of the memorandum of appeal after an unexplained delay of four and a half years.
Whether Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act bars amendment of claims to a higher amount after the award.
Validity and enforceability of the assignment deeds under the Contract Act and the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act.
Whether the matter should be remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination of compensation.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 17, s. Order 6 Rule 18
Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972
Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 23, s. 28
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(1), s. 18, s. 25(2), s. 4(1), s. 54, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationAssignment deedAmendment of pleadingsLocus of claimDelay and lachesReference CourtSubstitutionStatutory limitationPublic policy

Judgment

(2011] 9 S.C.R. 756

_,.
.,..-.
A DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
S.S. AGGARWAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7301-7302 of 2003)
AUGUST 02, 2011
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 18 and 54 - Acquisition
of land - Petitions by the landowners claiming compensation
c at the prevailing market price - During pendency, execution
of the assignment deeds by the landowners - Thereafter,
award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector - Application
u/s. 18 for re-fixation of market value of the acquired land by
~
assignees - No inquiry on the issue of locus of assignees to
'-
D claim compensation by the Collector and matter referred to
the Reference Court - Reference Court also did not inquire "'
about tile entitlement - Market value re-fixed - Appeal u/s.
54 by the assignees that they were entitled to enhanced
compensation but limiting their clai1.1 due to paucity of funds
E - After four and a half years of filing the appeals, petition for
amendment of the memo of appeal by the assignees -
Division Bench of the High Court enhanced the market value
of the acquired land and also allowed the amendment ~

application - On appeal, held: Even though in terms of the ·"
assignment deeds, assignees became entitled to seek
F
substitution before the Land Acquisition Collector, they neither
sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced
the assignment deeds to show that the landowners had
transferred the right to receive compensation - There was no
explanation for the same - High Court committed an error by
G
entertaining and allowing the amendment application.filed by ,._
the assignees and that too without even adverting to the issue ~·
of unexplained delay of four and a half years - High Court
first decided the appeals filed by the assignees and then
H 756
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 757
. .....
~
AGGARWAL & ORS .
disposed of the amendment application without going through A
the records - As such, Union of India and DDA were deprived
of an opportunity to make a request to the High Court to remit
the case to the Reference Court - Matter remitted to the
Reference Court for fresh determination of the compensation
.. payable to the landowners and/or assignees. B
"
Landowners were issued notices with regard to
acquisition of their lands. They filed petitions claiming
compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per square yard.
During pendency of the matter, the landowners executed
Assignment Deed in favour of assignees. The Land
c
Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs. 98/- per square yard.
t Thereafter, the assignees filed an application u/s. 18 of
;.
the Act for re-fixation of market value of the acquired land.
ii The Collector did not make any inquiry and referred the D
matter to the court. The Reference Court also did not
inquire about the entitlement and fixed the market value
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,02,000/-.
Aggrieved, the assignees filed an application uls. 54
claiming that even though they were entitled to enhanced E
compensation but due to paucity of funds they were
limiting their claim to Rs. 3,000/- per square yard. After
'I_
four and a half years of filing the appeals, the assignees
).
filed a petition for amendment of the memo of appeal so
as to enable them to claim compensation at the rate of F
Rs.7,000/- per square yard. The Division Bench enhanced
the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 7,390/- per
square yard as also allowed the application. Therefore,
the instant cross appeals were filed.
G
J, Disposing of the appeals, the Court
~
HELD: 1.1 Even though in terms of the assignment
deeds, respondent and others-assignees became entitled
to seek substitution before the Land Acquisition
Collector, they neither sought impleadment in the award H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A proceedings nor produced the assignment deeds to >r -
show that the landowners had transferred the right to
receive compensation. [Para 14) [768-C-D]

1.2 The counsel appearing for the assignees could
not offer any tangible explanation as to why his clients
B •
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
c 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
. ...
D Collector or the Reference Court, either of them could
I\
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 sci utiny of their claim for
E compensation at the hands of the Land Acquisition
Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court. [Para
15) [768-E-H; 769-A]
~

1.3 There is merit in the submission that the High •
F Court committed serious error by entertaining and
allowing the amendment application filed by the
respondent and others. It is surprising 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,
G ,..
there was no occasion for the High Court to incorporate
the condition of making good the deficiency in court fee. JI.
By this process, the Union of India and the DOA were
deprived of an important opportunity to make a request
'
to the High Court to remit the case to the Reference Court
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 759
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
or at least allow them to adduce evidence on the issue A
of correct market value of the acquired land. Also the
High Court erred in allowing the amendment application
without even adverting to the issue of unexplained delay
of four and a half years. (Para 17) (769-C-E]
B
1.4 The impugned judgment as also the one passed
by the Reference Court are set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Reference Court for fresh determination
of the compensation payable to the landowners and/or
assignees after giving them reasonable opportunity of C
adducing evidence in support of their respective cases.
While doing so the Reference Court would first decide the
issue of locus of the assignees to claim compensation.
. The ODA 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 D
compensation as also be entitled to raise all other legally
permissible objections to contest the claim of the
assignees. [Para 19) [771-B-F]
Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma E
(2011) 2 sec 54 - relied on.
Buta Singh v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 284: 1995
(3) SCR 359; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC
1: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 48; Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. F
Askar Nawaz Jung (1991) 3 SCC 67: 1991 (1) SCR 327;
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: 1986
( 2 ) SCR 278; Jayamma v. Maria Bai .(2004) 7 S~C 459: G
2004 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 175; Sunnse Associates v.
Government of NCT of Delhi (2006) 5 SCC 603: 2006 (1)
Suppl. SCR 421 - referred to.
Dawson v. Great Northern and City Railway Company
(1905) 1 KB 260 - referred to. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
.,,
-;-

A Case Law Reference:
1995 ( 3 ) SCR 359 Referred to Para 11
2005 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 48 Referred to Para 11,
18 •
B •
1991 (1) SCR 327 Referred to Para 12
(1995) Supp. 2 sec 549 Referred to Para 12
1986 ( 2) SCR 278 Referred to Para 12
c 2004 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 175Referred to Para 12
(1905) 1 KB 260 Referred to Para 13
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 421 Referred to Para 13 ~
.
D (2011) 2 sec 54 Relied on Para 19 ...
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7301-7302 of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2003 of the
E High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 1147 and 155
of 1998.
WITH >
C.A. No. 836 of 2004. •
F C.A. No. 6264-6265 of 2011.

A. Sharan, Geeta Luthra, Vishnu B. Saharya (Saharya &
Co.) AOR (for ODA) and D.N. Goburdhan for the Appellant.

Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sriram Krishna and
G Rachna Srivastava for the Respondents. ,~
,..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.5. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 18056-
H 18057 of 2003.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 761
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"' ~

A
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 8
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
c
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.

·" 4. In response to the notice issued under Section 9 of the D
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 E
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 DOA') at a concessional
rate of Rs.2,200/- per square yard. F
5. During the pendency of the matter before the Land
Acquisition Collector, Delhi, Mangla Ra~ 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 G
,,., Singh, Advocate, who was representing the landow~ers before
~.. the Land Acquisition Collector). The relevant portions of the
assignment deed are extracted below:
"WHEREAS, the Vendors are the actual owners ~f the
Acquired Land Total Measuring 8 Bighas and 5 81swas, H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
>/L--
+
A in Khasra No. 133 situated in Revenue Estate of Village
Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.
That the above said land has been n1:>tified under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 6.1.1995, and ..
declaration under Section 6 and notification under 17(1) •
B
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has also been issued
on 10th Jan. 1993 but the compensation in respect of said
land has not been passed by Govt. to the Vendors so far.

AND WHEREAS, the possession of thia said land has also
c 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 t
...
measuring 8 big has 5 biswas, in Khasre1 No. 133, of village
....
D 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)
E
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
F 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
I
G 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 t~tc. of the same
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 763
-t·
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

to be filed in Delhi High Court and other higher courts with A
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. B
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 property of the Vendees, with the rights to
receive and recover the same. c
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 D
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 thev
have not entered into any agreement with anyone else fvr
E
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 F
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.
~ G
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 o~ners of the sam~. ttie:y
transferred their rights, titles and mterests and claims m H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R
-t

A 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
.
B •
are appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.18056/
2003.

7. Although, the assignees were very much aware that
claims filed by the landowners were pending before the Land
c 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
D 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
E
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
F 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
G Reference Court, S.S. Aggarwal and 5 others filed an appeal ¥"'
~-

under Section 54 of the 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
H was filed by Om Prakash and 2 others.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 765
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"" +
10. After four and a half years of filing the appeals, S.S. A
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
..
-Jo,
_ deposited court fee of Rs.4,98,000/- by assuming that the High B
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 c
vide judgment dated 21.2.2003 and market value of the
acquired land w~s fixed at Rs.7,390/- per square yard. By an
order of the sar;ile date, the Division Bench of the High Court
t '
1allowed C.M. No'.1340 of 2002 in the following terms:
_,;I
. "By this application amendment has been sought to the D
memorandum of appeal. Such like applications have been
decided in a number of cases by this Court .
. Amendment to the memorandum of appeal to claim higher
amount of compensation has been sought on the ground E
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 F
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 . G
-4 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 H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
...,
-t
A and Buta Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (1995)
5 sec 284 the prayer made in the application is allowed
subject to the conditio..ri of the appellant making good the
deficiency in court fee within a period of four weeks, if not
already made good."
B 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
c 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 and a half years.
D Ms. Luthra further argued that the High Court was not justified ....
in disposing of the appeals whnout first deciding the
amendment application and giving an opportunity to the
acquiring authority and the ultimate beneficiary i.e. the DOA to
contest the prayer made by S.S. Aggarwal and others for
E 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 "
F 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
G 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 DOA argued that the impugned judgment is
H liable to be set aside because the assignees had deliberately
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 767
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
+ kept the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and A
the High Court in dark about the assignment deeds under which
chey claim to have purchased the right to get compensation by
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 B
4
.. 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 c
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
~
D
(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.
E
13. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing
for S.S. Aggarwal and other assignees argued that the DOA
• 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 F
Reference Court. Shri Mehta emphasised that the assignment
deeds are 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 ODA
to indirectly question the transaction involving transfer of the G
.>. right to receive compensation. Shri Mehta relied upon the
...,j
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
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

1'-
A 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
B 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
c 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
D neither sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor
t

... -
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
E
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
F 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
G could have held an inquiry and given an opportunity to the "'-
landowners and/or assignees to explain the position. By • r

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
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 769
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
~
and the High Court. A
16. In the aforesaid scenario, it will be just and proper to
set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case to the
e Reference Court for fresh determination of the amount of
... compensation payable to the landowner and/or assignee after
B
;, 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 c
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
"'t through the records. If this was not so, there was no occasion
for the High Court to incorporate the condition of making good D
,,i
the deficiency in court fee. By this process, the Union of India
and the DOA 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 E
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 .
~
18. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (supra), this Court
considered the legality and propriety of granting prayer for F
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
G
> 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 H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011} 9 S.C.R.

A have been maintainable in view of statutory interdict 4-
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
B 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
c 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 Order6 Rule 17 would be maintainable
having regard to Section 53 of the Act, with utmost respect, .,.
D 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
E
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
..
•
F the necessary amendments have been carried out in the
application for reference or memorandum of appeal. In
terms of Order 6 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
G his pleadings within the time granted therefor and if no time
was specified then within fourteen days from the date of 4-.
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
H not be permitted to amend its pleadings thereafter unless
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. S.S. 771
AGGARWAL & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute that A
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
B.
the Reference Court are set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Reference Court for
fresh determination of the compensation payable to C
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 D
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 E
their respective cases.
(iv) In view of the law laid down in Delhi Development

-
Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (2011) 2 SCC 54,
the ODA shall be entitled to participate in the
proceedings of the Reference Court and raise F
objections against the claim made by the assignees
for payment of compensation. The ODA shall also
be entitled to raise all other legally permissible
objections to contest the claim of the assignees.
G
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 receipUproduction of copy of this
judgment. ·

N.J. Appeals disposed of. H