Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Thr Lrs vs Union Of India

SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS ..Appellant (S)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA ..Respondent (S)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2928 OF 2022

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 07.07.2017 in CMA No.

23091/2017 and order(s) dated 12.05.2017 in Review

Petition Nos. 309/2008 & 310/2008, passed by the High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi, the original land owners –

appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.04.20 16:46:36 IST Reason: 1

2. The present proceedings have a checkered history. The

facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as

under: ­

2.1 A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, was issued for acquiring land of the original land

owners in village Jasola, Delhi. The Land Acquisition

Officer declared award dated 29.01.1981, awarding

compensation at Rs. 3500/­ per bigha. The reference court

enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22000/­ per bigha vide

judgment and order dated 03.05.1986. Thereafter, the

High Court vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2001

enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2240/­ per

sq. yard relying upon its own decision in the case of one

Bhola Nath and others Vs. Union of India. At this stage, it

is required to be noted that at the time when the High

Court enhanced the amount of compensation in the year

2001 relying upon the decision in the case of Bhola Nath

(supra), the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union

of India against the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath

(supra) was already dismissed by this Court on

12.04.1999. However, the SLP filed by the Delhi

2 Development Authority (DDA) – beneficiary in the Bhola

Nath acquisition case came to be allowed subsequently by

this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2010

[DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma; (2011) 2 SCC 54]. The

matter was remanded to the reference court. On remand,

the reference court determined the compensation at Rs.

250/­ per sq. yard, which was subsequently enhanced to

Rs. 2000/­ per sq. yard by the High Court vide subsequent

judgment and order dated 23.03.2016. The SLP against

the subsequent judgment and order dated 23.03.2016

passed by the High Court in the case of Bhola Nath (supra)

came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated

06.04.2017.

2.2 Before that and at the relevant time, when the SLP in the

case of Bhola Nath (supra) against the original judgment

and order was pending before this Court, the Union of

India filed the SLP before this Court challenging the

judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the High

Court in the case of present land owners, which was filed

in the year 2007. There was a delay of 2316 days in

3 preferring the SLP. This Court dismissed the SLP arising

from the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed by

the High Court in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No.

416/1986 and other allied first appeals. Despite the

dismissal of the SLP on the ground of delay, on the very

ground that the decision in the case of Bhola Nath (supra)

which was relied upon while passing the judgment and

order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA No. 416/1986 and other

allied first appeals and determined the compensation at

Rs. 2000/­ per sq. yard was pending, the Union of India

filed the present review application, which was also after a

period of six months of the dismissal of SLP. As observed

herein above, during the pendency of the review

application and on remand to the reference court by this

Court in the case of Bhola Nath (supra), the High Court

again determined the compensation at Rs. 2000/­ per sq.

yard vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even

the SLP preferred by the DDA against the judgment and

order dated 23.03.2016 filed in the case of Bhola Nath

(supra) came to be dismissed by this Court vide order

dated 06.04.2017. By the impugned ex­parte judgment

4 and order, the High Court has allowed the review petitions

and recalled the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in

RFA No. 416/1986 and other allied first appeals,

determining the compensation at Rs. 2000/­ per sq. yard

relying upon the decision in the case of Bhola Nath

(supra), solely on the ground that the decision in the case

of Bhola Nath (supra), which has been relied upon by the

High Court while passing the judgment and order in RFA

No. 416/1986 was set aside by this Court vide order dated

08.12.2010. The appellants herein having come to know

about the impugned order dated 12.05.2017, allowing

review and recalling judgment and order dated

19.10.2001, immediately preferred a recall application

being CMA No. 23091/2017. It was brought to the notice

of the Division Bench that on remand again the High Court

had enhanced the compensation at Rs. 2000/­ per sq.

yard in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) and the SLP against

the said judgment and order has been dismissed by the

Supreme Court. However, by the impugned order dated

07.07.2017 though the High Court has noted that the

aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the Court

5 when it heard and allowed the review petition, the Division

Bench of the High Court refused to recall the order dated

12.05.2017 allowing Review Petition (R.P.) No. 309/2008

by observing that as the appeal itself was listed before the

Roster Bench, it will be open to the original land owners –

appellants to place the above facts before the Roster Bench

for its consideration.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order

dated 12.05.2017 passed by the High Court in R.P. No.

309/2008 allowing the said review application/petition

and recalling the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001

passed in RFA No. 416/1986 and dismissing the recall

application being CMA No. 23091/2017 by order dated

07.07.2017, the original land owners – appellants before

the High Court in RFA No. 416/1986, have preferred the

present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 2926 and 2927 of

2022.

6 2.4 Similar order has been passed by the High Court in R.P.

No. 310/2008 in Regular First Appeal No. 453/1986,

which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 2928/2022.

3. We have heard Shri Yashraj Singh Deora and Ms. Nidhi

Mohan Parashar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respective appellants and Shri Nachiketa Joshi,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

Union of India.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos.

309/2008 and 310/2008 in respective Regular First

Appeal Nos. 416/1986 & 453/1986. From the orders

passed by the High Court allowing the review applications

and recalling the earlier judgment and order dated

19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 & 453/1986, it

appears that the High Court has recalled the judgment

and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in the aforesaid

regular first appeals solely on the ground that the

judgment in the case of Bhola Nath (supra), which was

7 relied upon while passing judgment and order dated

19.10.2001 in Regular First Appeal No. 416/1986 and

other allied first appeals was set aside by this Court vide

judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 and the matter was

remanded. However, it is required to be noted that during

the pendency of the review petitions, on remand again the

High Court decided the first appeals in the case of Bhola

Nath (supra) vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016

and again determined the compensation at Rs. 2000/­ per

sq. yard. Even against the subsequent judgment and order

dated 23.03.2016, the SLP preferred by the DDA has been

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017. Therefore, when review applications/petitions were allowed

on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuant to the

decision of this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Bhola Nath

Sharma (supra) dated 08.12.2010, the first appeals are

remanded and pending, in fact there was already a

decision on remand vide judgment and order dated

23.03.2016 and even the SLP was dismissed. Therefore,

the ground on which the High Court had allowed the

review applications was thereafter not available. Under the

8 circumstances, and in view of the subsequent

development, which was even pointed out to the High

Court while filing the recall application being CMA No.

23091/2017, the order(s) passed by the High Court in

Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to

be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that earlier also

while passing judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 and

allowing RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, enhancing

the compensation at Rs. 2240/­ per sq. yard, the High

Court relied upon the decision in the case of Bhola Nath

(supra). It is true that subsequently vide judgment and

order dated 08.12.2010, the decision in the case of Bhola

Nath (supra) (First) was set aside and the matter was

remanded. However, again on remand, the High Court has

enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2000/­ per sq. yard

and the said judgment dated 23.03.2016 in the case of

Bhola Nath (supra) (second) has been confirmed by this

Court as the SLP has been dismissed. Therefore, even if

the first appeals preferred by the original land owners are

9 heard again pursuant to the impugned order passed by the

High Court in the review petitions, recalling judgment and

order dated 19.10.2001, in that case also again the court

will have to consider and rely upon the judgment in the

case of Bhola Nath (supra) (second), which was earlier also

relied upon. Therefore, the same will be nothing but an

exercise in futility. In any case, the cause and the reasons

on which the High Court has allowed the review petitions

and recalled judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA

Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, did not exist in view of the

subsequent development narrated hereinabove. The

impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High

Court allowing review petitions hence deserve to be

quashed and set aside and the judgment(s) and order(s)

passed by the High Court given in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and

453/1986 are required to be restored.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all

these appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order

dated 12.05.2017 in R.P. No. 309/2008 in RFA No.

416/1986 and the order dated 07.07.2017 in CMA No.

10 23091/2017 in R.P. No. 309/2008 in RFA No. 416/1986

and impugned judgment and order in R.P. No. 310/2008

in RFA No. 453/1986, allowing review petition and

recalling judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA

Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, are hereby quashed and

set aside. Consequently, common judgment and order

passed by the High Court dated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos.

416/1986 and 453/1986, are ordered to be restored. Now

the original claimants shall have to be paid the

compensation determined pursuant to the judgment and

order dated 19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and

453/1986 along with all other statutory benefits which

may be available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to

be paid within a period of Twelve weeks from today.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts of the

case, there shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, April 20, 2022.

11