D.D.A. v. BHOLANATH SHARMA BY LRS. AND ORS. INSC 1070

NAME OF CASE D.D.A. v. BHOLANATH SHARMA BY LRS. AND ORS.

FACTS The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 25.6.1979 whereby he divided the acquired land into three Blocks i.e. `A', `B', `C' and fixed market value thereof at the rate of Rs.84/- per sq. yd., Rs.63/- per sq. yd. and Rs.42/- per sq. yd. respectively. The respondents were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and sought to have it reviewed by the court. The Reference Court took up their cases and, in 1980, ruled that Bhola Nath and another should be compensated at ₹175 per square yard, with additional solatium and interest. In another case in 1984, the court divided the land into two categories and set the rates at ₹129 and ₹108 per square yard, depending on the block. Not satisfied with these amounts, the respondents appealed to a higher court, requesting ₹575 per square yard. Seventeen years later, in 1996, Bhola Nath and others sought to amend their appeal, increasing their claim to ₹3,000 per square yard. Smt. Narbada Devi and others made a similar request. Although the Land Acquisition Collector opposed these amendments, the High Court approved them.

ISSUE Was the acquisition of land by D.D.A. procedurally valid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Were the respondents entitled to compensation as legitimate claimants?

DECISION The Supreme Court decided in favor of the respondents, stating that the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) had not followed the proper procedures under the Land Acquisition Act. It ruled that the respondents deserved fair compensation and stressed the importance of following the law carefully during land acquisitions. The judgment also highlighted the need to respect property rights and ensure fairness and transparency when dealing with such matters.

RATIONLE The Court examined whether the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had the right to challenge the decision of the High Court. It was noted that while the DDA initiated the land acquisition process in 1973, it was not involved in the subsequent proceedings where compensation was determined. Neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the Reference Court provided the DDA with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate compensation. Additionally, the High Court did not notify the DDA during the appeal process, likely because it had not been a party in the earlier stages. Despite this, the DDA was directed to pay over ₹14 crore in compensation to the respondents. Given this significant financial liability and its lack of involvement in the earlier proceedings, the Court found sufficient justification to allow the DDA to seek permission to file special leave petitions.