Sh. Ram Chander (dead) Thr Lrs v. Union of India
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 ow ners –
appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.
2. The present proceedings have a checkered history. The f acts
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 a ward 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 Pe tition (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.
SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS v. UNION OF INDIA
However, the SLP filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) –
beneficiary in the Bhola Nath acquisition case came to b e 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 ref erence court
determined the compensation at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard , which was
subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard by the High C ourt
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 dismis sed 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 f iled in
the year 2007. There was a delay of 2316 days in 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 pa ssing 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 pr esent 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 i n the
case of Bhola Nath (supra), the High Court again determ ined 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 06.04.20 17. By the
impugned ex-parte judgment 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 b y the High
619
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 t he 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 noti ce of the
Court 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 appe al
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 re call
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.
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 behal f 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 applic ations 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
SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS v. UNION OF INDIA
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
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 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 subse quent
judgment and order dated 23.03.2016, the SLP preferred by the DD A
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 S LP was
dismissed. Therefore, the ground on which the High Court had allowed
the review applications was thereafter not availabl e. Under the
circumstances, and in view of the subsequent development, which was
even pointed out to the High Court while filing the recall ap plication
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 al so
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 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) (sec ond),
621
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 r ecalled
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 quashe d 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. 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 und er 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.
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS v. UNION OF INDIA
[M. R. SHAH, J.]