SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS versus UNION OF INDIA on 20 April 2022

614

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

A

SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS

v.

UNION OF INDIA

(Civil Appeal Nos. 2926 - 2927 of 2022)

BAPRIL 20, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court vide order dated12.05.2017 allowed the review petitions filed by Union of Indiaand recalled the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 determiningCthe compensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard relying upon the decisionin the case of Bhola Nath, solely on the ground that the decision inthe case of Bhola Nath which was relied upon by the High Courtwas set aside by Supreme Court vide order dated 08.12.2010 –Appellants-land owners filed recall applications, Division BenchDrefused to recall the order dated 12.05.2017 – On appeal, held:High Court recalled the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001passed in the regular first appeals solely on the ground that thejudgment in the case of Bhola Nath, which was relied upon whilepassing judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in Regular FirstAppeal No. 416/1986 and other allied first appeals was set asideEby Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 andthe matter was remanded – However, it is required to be noted thatduring the pendency of the review petitions, on remand again theHigh Court decided the first appeals in the case of Bhola Nath videjudgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and again determined theFcompensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard – Even against thesubsequent judgment and order dated 23.03.2016, the SLP preferredby the DDA was dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated06.04.2017 – Therefore, when review applications/petitions wereallowed on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuant to the decisionof this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma datedG08.12.2010, the first appeals are remanded and pending, in factthere was already a decision on remand vide judgment and orderdated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP was dismissed – Therefore, theground on which the High Court had allowed the review applicationswas thereafter not available – Impugned judgment and order datedH12.05.2017 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 inRFA No. 416/1986 and impugned judgment and order in R.P. No.310/2008 in RFA No. 453/1986, allowing review petition andrecalling judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, are quashed and set aside – Consequently,common judgment and order passed by the High Court dated19.10.2001 in RFA Nos.416/1986 and 453/1986 are restored.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 The Court have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court in Review PetitionNos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 in respective Regular First AppealNos. 416/1986 & 453/1986. From the orders passed by the HighCourt allowing the review applications and recalling the earlierjudgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 & 453/1986, it appears that the High Court has recalledthe judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in the aforesaidregular first appeals solely on the ground that the judgment inthe case of Bhola Nath, which was relied upon while passingjudgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in Regular First AppealNo. 416/1986 and other allied first appeals was set aside by thisCourt vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 and the matterwas remanded. However, it is required to be noted that duringthe pendency of the review petitions, on remand again the HighCourt decided the first appeals in the case of Bhola Nath videjudgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and again determined thecompensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard. Even against thesubsequent judgment and order dated 23.03.2016, the SLPpreferred by the DDA has been dismissed by this Court videorder dated 06.04.2017. Therefore, when review applications/petitions were allowed on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuantto the decision of this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Bhola NathSharma dated 08.12.2010, the first appeals are remanded andpending, in fact there was already a decision on remand videjudgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP wasdismissed. Therefore, the ground on which the High Court hadallowed the review applications was thereafter not available.Under the circumstances, and in view of the subsequentdevelopment, which was even pointed out to the High Court while AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Afiling the recall application being CMA No. 23091/2017, theorder(s) passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to be quashed and set aside. [Para4][619-G-H; 620-A-E]

1.2 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that earlierBalso while passing judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 andallowing RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, enhancing thecompensation at Rs. 2240/- per sq. yard, the High Court reliedupon the decision in the case of Bhola Nath. It is true thatsubsequently vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, thedecision in the case of Bhola Nath(First) was set aside and theCmatter was remanded. However, again on remand, the High Courthas enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard andthe said judgment dated 23.03.2016 in the case of Bhola Nath(second) has been confirmed by this Court as the SLP has beendismissed. Therefore, even if the first appeals preferred by theDoriginal land owners are heard again pursuant to the impugnedorder passed by the High Court in the review petitions, recallingjudgment and order dated 19.10.2001, in that case also again thecourt will have to consider and rely upon the judgment in thecase of Bhola Nath(second), which was earlier also relied upon.Therefore, the same will be nothing but an exercise in futility. InEany case, the cause and the reasons on which the High Court hasallowed the review petitions and recalled judgment and orderdated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, did notexist in view of the subsequent development. The impugnedjudgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court allowing

Freview petitions hence deserve to be quashed and set aside andthe judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court given inRFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986 are required to be restored.[Para 4.1][620-F-H; 621-A-B]

DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma; (2011) 2 SCC 54 –Greferred to.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 2 SCC 54referred toPara 2.1

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.2926-2927 of 2022.H

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.05.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Review Petition No.309 of 2008 in RFA No.416of 1986 and CM No.12160 of 2008.

With

Civil Appeal No.2928 of 2022

Yashraj Singh Deora, Siddhant Singh, Ms. Prakriti Roy, Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Arpit Kumar Singh,Chaitanya Roy Wadera, Kartikeya Sharma, Shankar Divate, Advs. forthe Appellants.

Nachiketa Joshi, Kamlendra Mishra, Ms. Neela Kadar Gokhale,Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, G. S. Makkar, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advs. for theRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 07.07.2017 in CMA No. 23091/2017 and order(s) dated12.05.2017 in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 & 310/2008, passed bythe High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, the original land owners –appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.

2. The present proceedings have a checkered history. The factsleading 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 villageJasola, Delhi. The Land Acquisition Officer declared award dated29.01.1981, awarding compensation at Rs. 3500/- per bigha. Thereference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22000/- per bighavide judgment and order dated 03.05.1986. Thereafter, the High Courtvide judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs. 2240/- per sq. yard relying upon its own decision inthe 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 enhancedthe amount of compensation in the year 2001 relying upon the decisionin the case of Bhola Nath (supra), the Special Leave Petition (SLP)filed by the Union of India against the judgment in the case of BholaNath (supra) was already dismissed by this Court on 12.04.1999.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHowever, the SLP filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) –beneficiary in the Bhola Nath acquisition case came to be allowedsubsequently by this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2010[DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma; (2011) 2 SCC 54]. The matter wasremanded to the reference court. On remand, the reference courtdetermined the compensation at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard, which wasBsubsequently enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard by the High Courtvide subsequent judgment and order dated 23.03.2016. The SLP againstthe subsequent judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the HighCourt in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) came to be dismissed by thisCourt vide order dated 06.04.2017.

C2.2 Before that and at the relevant time, when the SLP in thecase of Bhola Nath (supra) against the original judgment and order waspending before this Court, the Union of India filed the SLP before thisCourt challenging the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed bythe High Court in the case of present land owners, which was filed inDthe year 2007. There was a delay of 2316 days in preferring the SLP.This Court dismissed the SLP arising from the judgment and order dated19.10.2001 passed by the High Court in Regular First Appeal (RFA)No. 416/1986 and other allied first appeals. Despite the dismissal of theSLP on the ground of delay, on the very ground that the decision in thecase of Bhola Nath (supra) which was relied upon while passing theEjudgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA No. 416/1986 and otherallied first appeals and determined the compensation at Rs. 2000/- persq. yard was pending, the Union of India filed the present reviewapplication, which was also after a period of six months of the dismissalof SLP. As observed herein above, during the pendency of the reviewFapplication and on remand to the reference court by this Court in thecase of Bhola Nath (supra), the High Court again determined thecompensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard vide judgment and order dated23.03.2016 and even the SLP preferred by the DDA against the judgmentand 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 theGimpugned ex-parte judgment and order, the High Court has allowed thereview petitions and recalled the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001in RFA No. 416/1986 and other allied first appeals, determining thecompensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard relying upon the decision in thecase of Bhola Nath (supra), solely on the ground that the decision in theHcase of Bhola Nath (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the judgment and order in RFA No. 416/1986 wasset aside by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2010. The appellants hereinhaving 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 againthe High Court had enhanced the compensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq.yard in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) and the SLP against the saidjudgment and order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. However,by the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 though the High Court hasnoted that the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of theCourt when it heard and allowed the review petition, the Division Benchof the High Court refused to recall the order dated 12.05.2017 allowingReview Petition (R.P.) No. 309/2008 by observing that as the appealitself was listed before the Roster Bench, it will be open to the originalland owners – appellants to place the above facts before the RosterBench for its consideration.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order dated12.05.2017 passed by the High Court in R.P. No. 309/2008 allowing thesaid review application/petition and recalling the judgment and order dated19.10.2001 passed in RFA No. 416/1986 and dismissing the recallapplication being CMA No. 23091/2017 by order dated 07.07.2017, theoriginal land owners – appellants before the High Court in RFA No. 416/1986, have preferred the present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 2926and 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 subjectmatter of Civil Appeal No. 2928/2022.

3. We have heard Shri Yashraj Singh Deora and Ms. Nidhi MohanParashar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellantsand Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent – Union of India.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 inrespective Regular First Appeal Nos. 416/1986 & 453/1986. From theorders passed by the High Court allowing the review applications andrecalling the earlier judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in RFANos. 416/1986 & 453/1986, it appears that the High Court has recalled A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in the aforesaid regularfirst appeals solely on the ground that the judgment in the case of BholaNath (supra), which was relied upon while passing judgment and orderdated 19.10.2001 in Regular First Appeal No. 416/1986 and other alliedfirst appeals was set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated08.12.2010 and the matter was remanded. However, it is required to beBnoted that during the pendency of the review petitions, on remand againthe High Court decided the first appeals in the case of Bhola Nath (supra)vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and again determined thecompensation at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard. Even against the subsequentjudgment and order dated 23.03.2016, the SLP preferred by the DDAChas been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017. Therefore,when review applications/petitions were allowed on 12.05.2017 on theground that pursuant to the decision of this Court in the case of DDAVs. Bhola Nath Sharma (supra) dated 08.12.2010, the first appeals areremanded and pending, in fact there was already a decision on remandvide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP wasDdismissed. Therefore, the ground on which the High Court had allowedthe review applications was thereafter not available. Under thecircumstances, and in view of the subsequent development, which waseven pointed out to the High Court while filing the recall applicationbeing CMA No. 23091/2017, the order(s) passed by the High Court inEReview Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to be quashedand set aside.

4.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that earlier alsowhile passing judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 and allowing RFANos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, enhancing the compensation at Rs. 2240/

F- per sq. yard, the High Court relied upon the decision in the case ofBhola Nath (supra). It is true that subsequently vide judgment and orderdated 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 NathG(supra) (second) has been confirmed by this Court as the SLP has beendismissed. Therefore, even if the first appeals preferred by the originalland owners are heard again pursuant to the impugned order passed bythe High Court in the review petitions, recalling judgment and order dated19.10.2001, in that case also again the court will have to consider andHrely upon the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) (second), which was earlier also relied upon. Therefore, the same will be nothingbut an exercise in futility. In any case, the cause and the reasons onwhich the High Court has allowed the review petitions and recalledjudgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, did not exist in view of the subsequent development narratedhereinabove. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the HighCourt allowing review petitions hence deserve to be quashed and setaside and the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court givenin 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 theseappeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2017 inR.P. No. 309/2008 in RFA No. 416/1986 and the order dated 07.07.2017in CMA No. 23091/2017 in R.P. No. 309/2008 in RFA No. 416/1986 andimpugned judgment and order in R.P. No. 310/2008 in RFA No. 453/1986, allowing review petition and recalling judgment and order dated19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, are hereby quashedand set aside. Consequently, common judgment and order passed by theHigh Court dated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, areordered to be restored. Now the original claimants shall have to be paidthe compensation determined pursuant to the judgment and order dated19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986 along with allother statutory benefits which may be available under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 to be paid within a period of Twelve weeks fromtoday. 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)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H