Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION`
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 29262927 OF 2022
SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS ..Appellant (S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..Respondent (S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2928 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
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