Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. v. M.L. Abbott Thru. LRs

1. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 2.9.2009 passed J by the First Appellate Court whereby it has upheld the judgment/decree dated 10.2.2003 passed by the learned trial court, however, slightly modified the same. 2013:DHC:8598 9/

2. So far as the respondent/plaintiff is concerned, he filed a suit on 19.9.1967 against the appellants/defendants for possession and compensation in respect ofaparcel ofland measuring 2bighas and 8biswas situated in Khasra No.298 of Village Kilokri, Delhi. The said suit was registered and after completion of the pleadings, two issues were framed, evidence was adduced and ultimately on 10.2.2003, the suit was decreed by the trial court in favour ofthe plaintiffrespondent, both, with regard to the prayer ofpossession as well as the compensation. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the trial court against the appellants/defendants is reproduced as under:- "Issue No. 11 In view of above discussion, suit of plaintiff is decreed. Defendants No.l and 2 are hereby directed to handover vacant and physical possession of suit land measuring 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas situated in Khasra No.298 of Village Kilokari, Delhi plaintiff within period of six months after removing its equipments, articles and constructions etc. if any and after restoring the plot in same condition which was at the time in year 1959. Ifdefendants No.l and2failed to ^ handover vacant possession to plaintiff within six months then thereafter they shall be liable to pay ^0,000/-p.m. as use and occupation charges till the handing over possession with increase of10% after every threeyears. Defendants No.l and 2 if wants to retain the suit land in public interest then they have to pay compensation for the same out of any two following options which is most i beneficial to its as per their choice. Firstly, they can make payment ofcompensation at the market rate oftoday as per rates prescribed by Ministry of Works and Housing Government ofIndia applicable now. Second option could be as per offer ofplaintiff made in the application under Section 151 CPC dated 3.1.2003 by making payment oj 000/- per square meter along with interest at the rate of 18 %p afrom 19.11.1959 till the date offullpayment. This court grant period ofsix months for making due payment otherwise thereafter simple interest at the rate of 6% pM shall be payable on the amount assessed. After makingJull paymentasper eitheroption defendant can get the sale deed ofland executedfrom plaintiff. Defendants No.1and2are also directed topay ^50,000/- as claimed in the suit within two months along withfull costs of the suit. In case offailure to make this payment within two months, defendant shall be burdened with simple interest at the rate of6%p.a. on this decreed amount of ^50,000/- and costs as per decree sheet to be prepared. Defendants are also directed to inform court within two monthsfrom today which of option it is choosingfor compliance. Decree be preparedaccordingly andfile be consignedto recordroom. Sd/- (Ashwani Sarpal) Dated: 10.2.2003 Civil Judge, Delhi."

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants preferred the first appeal before the court of Additional District Judge bearing R.C.A. No.54/2009 titled MCD &Anr. vs. Manohar Lai Abbott &Ors. This was partially allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 2.9.2009. The learned appellate court had rightly upheld the decree with regard to the possession, however, with regard to the payment of compensation and the consequent acquisition of the land for the purpose of public purpose was modified inasmuch as the court had observed that it is the prime responsibility ofthe administration to decide as to whether the land is required for public purposes and if so, what is the compensation payable to the respondent m terms of the market value. It may be pertinent here to mention that the appellate court had given adetailed option to the appellants/defendants in case they wanted to acquire the land. The operative portion ofthe appellate court's order in this regard is as under:- "However, keeping in view the public interest involved, I hereby grant six months time to the appellants either to handover the physical possession of the said land to the legal heirs ofManohar Lai Abbott. In the alternative, it shall be open to the appellants to acquire the said land in public interest in accordance with law or to place at the disposal of the respondent No.1 and Kishan Lai an equal piece oflandfor such use as was so permitted vide auction ] dated 15.7.1957. In the meanwhile, the appellants shallpay a sum of ^20,000/- per month with effectfrom the date of decree i.e. 10.2.2003 till the date of handing over of the possession with an increase of10% after every three years as directed by the learned Trial Court. Ifurther hold that the legal heirs ofManohar Lai Abbott are entitled to the compensation of ^50,000/- (Tl,000/- per monthfor aperiod ofthree years prior to thefiling ofthe suit and Tl[4],000/- as special damages for the mental pain and agony and damages caused to the land by digging and laying ofsewers andhuge pipes) along with the cost ofthe suit. "

4. Still feeling dissatisfied, the appellants have filed this regular second appeal which has been pending in this court for the last more than two years. During the pendency of the present appeal, no substantial question of law has been formulated nor any submissions made in this regard. On the contrary, it is reflected from the order sheets that the land in question was acquired by the appellants for public purpose. The Land and Building Department, GNCTD has stated to have already issued anotification under Section 4ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 showing its intention to acquire the land in question. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that it is only a question oftime before the processes oflaw are completed and the proceedings, which are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, are brought to its logical conclusion. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the possession of the land in question is already with the appellants/defendants.

5. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that so far as the acquisition ofland is concerned, he has no objection J and he does not intendto challengethe same. Withregardto thepaymentof compensation also, hehas statedthatas andwhenthe same is fixed, he will take appropriate steps in accordance with law. He has only expressed his concern that the process ofacquisition is being followed at asnail pace as a consequence ofwhichhis mterests are beingjeopardized and the suitwhich was initiated in the year 1967 has still not culminated into afinality. It is, therefore, prayed by him that some kind of observation be passed by this court directmg the Land and Building Department, GNCTD to expedite the process ofacquisition ofthe land in question.

6. Mr. Bhasin, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated that in view ofthe statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, he does not press his regular second appeal. He also states that he has no objection to the direction being given to the Land and Building Department, GNCTD to complete the entire process in atime bound manner.

7. Havingregard to the submissions made before this court, Ifeel that as the regular second appeal is not being pressed, the Land and Buildmg Department, GNCTD is directed to complete the process of acquisition of the land in question as expeditiously as possible so as to bring the entire matter to finality. ith these observations, the appeal be treated as disposed of as not

8. With pressed.

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 'AA' V.K. SHALI, J