A.V.Subramanian vs Uoi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 303 OF 2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO. 5108 OF 2014)

A.V. SUBRAMANIAN APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Additional

District Judge, Karaikal on 24.1.1994 in L.A.O.P.

No.38/1993, the Union of India approached the High

Court in A.S.583 of 1994. The said appeal was partly

allowed by the judgment dated 23.02.2001, reducing

the compensation.

3. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in

SLP(C) No.16046 of 2001, which was dismissed in

limine - “Special leave petition is dismissed,” by

order dated 28.09.2001. Since, the dismissal was not

on merits, the appellant filed a review petition Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.03.08 before the High Court on 20.11.2001. When the said 11:32:42 IST Reason: 1 review petition was pending before the High Court, in

a connected matter, this Court in Civil Appeal

No.1500 of 2004 by judgment dated 08.11.2005 titled

Pattammal & Others. v. Union of India and Another,

reported in (2005) 13 SCC 63, allowed the appeal and

restored the award passed by the Reference Court.

The appellant contended before the High Court that in

view of the subsequent judgment by this Court and in

view of the fact that the review petition was already

pending before the High Court, the appellant should

get the benefit of the judgment dated 08.11.2005 of

this Court. It was not in dispute that the

acquisition in both the cases was pursuant to the

same notification and for the same purpose and the

acquired lands were similar. However, the High Court

declined to review the judgment. Thus, aggrieved,

the appellant is before this Court.

4. As rightly submitted by Shri Venkatramani,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of

India, unless the order passed by this Court in the

special leave petition, which rendered in dismissal

on 28.09.2001, is reviewed and unless there is also a

challenge thereafter to the original order passed by

the High Court dated 23.02.2001, the appellant cannot

2 succeed.

5. We may not have any quarrel with the legal

position. However, having regard to the factual

position that in a land acquisition case the

claimants have received different amounts by way of

compensation and that too in respect of the lands of

same nature covered by the same notification and

acquired for the same purpose, we are of the view

that all these technicalities should give way since

they are procedural and which can still be cured. We

do not think that the appellant should be driven to

such steps having regard to the factual position we

have referred to above.

6. Therefore, we are of the view that the lis should

be given a quietus. For doing complete justice, we

hold that the appellant shall be entitled to the

benefit of the judgment of this court dated

08.11.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.1500 of 2004.

7. In case the appellant has already received

payments, needless to say that the obligation under

the security offered before the High Court will stand

discharged.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set

aside and the appeal is allowed, as above.

3

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR] NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 10, 2017.

4

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5108/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/06/2013 in RA No. 74/2012 passed by the High Court of Madras)

A.V.SUBRAMANIAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR RESPONDENT(S) (with interim relief and office report)

Date : 10/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Basant,Sr.Adv.

Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.

Mr. Shiva Vijay Kumar,Adv.

Mr. Jagan,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Venkatramani,Sr.Adv.

Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.

Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mrs. Neelam Singh,Adv.

Mr. Sameer Singh,Adv.

Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela,Adv.

Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Siddiqui,Adv. Ms. Satya Siddiqui,Adv.

Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan,Adv.

Mr. Raj B. Yadav,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed 'Non-Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)

5