Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta & Ors.

1. The present appeals have been filed challenging the order of the Reference Court dated 20.05.1980.

2. Ld. Counsel for appellants submits that the land in question which is subject matter of the present appeals, was acquired between the years 1965 to 1969. Subsequently, pursuant thereto award was made by the Land and Building Department for the purposes of acquisition of the said land.

3. It is submitted that there were three sets of claimants for claiming compensation for the acquired land viz. first, Gram Sabha which raised its claim on the basis that it was a waste land. Second, owners of the land and their transferees and third, Gulab Sundri, who claimed to be the Bhumidhar of the land in question and her transferees.

4. It is submitted that the Reference Court by order dated 28.05.1980 rejected the claim of Gulab Sundri, thereby holding that the land in question was not a waste land. Further on, it was held that the owners and the transferees as well as Gulab Sundri and her transferees, were entitled to compensation for the acquisition of the land.

5. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 28.05.1980 passed by the Reference Court, 6 Regular First Appeals (RFAs) came to be filed before this Court. 4 sets of appeals being RFA 309/1980, RFA 310/1980, RFA 356/1980 and RFA 357/1980 were filed by the persons, who claimed to be owners of the acquired land and who had wrongly been denied compensation by this Court. Two sets of RFAs were filed by Gram Sabha viz. RFA 340/1980 and RFA 341/1980.

6. By judgment dated 26.02.1991, this Court dismissed the appeals filed on behalf of Gram Sabha on merits on the ground of res judicata,thereby holding that the land in question was not waste land. The 4 RFAs filed by the persons who alleged to be the owners of acquired land, were dismissed on technicality of abatement, that the legal heirs were not impleaded after expiry of the original appellants.

7. It is to be noted that after dismissal of appeals by this Court vide order dated 26.02.1991, subsequently Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed an application for impleadment on 23.04.1991. Since the appeals had already been dismissed by this Court, by order dated 09.08.1991, the Division Bench of this Court informed the DDA with respect to the disposal of the appeals already. Thus, on behalf of DDA time was taken to check the said position. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 02.12.1991, DDA withdrew the said application, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench. Thus, the fact remains that DDA was never a party in the said RFAs.

8. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 26.02.1991 passed by this Court, Civil Appeals were preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By Judgment dated 17.12.2002, Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeals, thereby remanding back the matters to this Court to adjudicate the RFAs by hearing the LRs of the deceased appellants.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that from 1991 till 2002, when the Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals, the DDA was never in the picture. It is only in December 2007 that the DDA filed an application that it should be impleaded instead of Gram Sabha in the present appeals.

10. It is submitted that as far as the DDA is concerned, which is seeking its right through Gram Sabha, the issue in question had already attained finality, as the two appeals filed on behalf of Gram Sabha were dismissed by this Court. It is submitted that no appeals before Supreme Court were filed by the Gram Sabha against the dismissal of the said RFAs. Thus, it is submitted that on the basis of Doctrine of Finality, the said issue cannot be raised by the DDA now.

11. Further, it is submitted that a Compromise Deed dated 31.01.2012 was entered between the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is submitted that on the basis of the said Compromise Deed dated 31.01.2012, various appellants have already withdrawn the appeals.

12. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the various orders passed by this Court, wherein various appellants have been allowed to withdraw the appeals previously by this Court. Thus, reference has been made to orders dated 13.03.2014, 25.09.2014, 08.09.2016 and 27.09.2019 passed by this Court.

13. By reference to the order dated 08.09.2016 passed in RFA 309/1980, it is submitted that not only the appellant was allowed to withdraw from the present appeal, the appellant was also allowed to withdraw the amount that had been deposited by the said appellant before the Registry. Further, by reference to order dated 27.09.2019 passed in RFA No. 309/1980, it is submitted that DDA had given its no objection to the said appellants to withdraw from the present appeal, except with reservation with respect to refund of deposits made by some of the appellants who wanted to withdraw from the appeal.

14. It is the submission on behalf of the appellants that as of now appellants Nos. 19, 30, 39, 55(a) and 55(c) as appearing in the amended memo of parties dated 07.03.2023, want to withdraw from the present appeals on the basis of Compromise Deed having been entered between the said appellants with respondent Nos. 1 to 11. There is further prayer that appellant No. 30 had deposited an amount of Rs. 9, 22,114/- on 26.11.2013 with the Registry of this Court. Thus, it is submitted that the said amount may be allowed to be withdrawn along with accrued interest, by LRs of the appellant No.30.

15. On the other hand, Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Ld. Standing Counsel for DDA strongly opposes the said prayer on behalf of the appellants. She submits that the appellants cannot be allowed to withdraw from the present appeal, since the rights and contentions of the parties have to be decided by this Court.