Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shankar Singh And 6 Others vs Union Of India And 6 Others on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25741 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Shankar,Triveni Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Raghav Dwivedi,Triveni Shanker Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
This petition takes exception to the order dated 14.9.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Competent Authority under National Highways Act, 1956.
The dispute relates to apportionment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land admeasuring 0.8303 of Arazi No. 552 situated at Village Koirajpur, Pargana Athgawan, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi, for construction of Ringroad Phase-2 (Package-1) Janpad Varanasi.
That by order dated 23.3.2020 the Authority concern passed the following order while discarding the objection raised by the respondent nos. 4 to 7:
"esjs }kjk i=koyh dks lE;d voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA lHkh i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kks ds cgl dks lquk x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k vkfifRrdrkZx.kks ds izkFkZuk i= ,oa mlds lkFk layXu lk{; rFkk cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okjk.klh }kjk izLrqr tkWp vk[;k fnukad 25-01-2020 o 19-03-2020 rFkk mDr vkjkth ds ckcr izLrqr fgLlk QkV ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkifRrdrkZ vo/kujk;u flag vkfn] ckck flag ;kno vkfn] xksiky ;kno vkfn] lgnsbZ nsoh iRuh fcjtw izlkn vkfn }kjk izLrqr vkifRr izkFkZuk i= esa dksbZ fof/kd cy ugha gSA tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr,o mi;qZDr foospuk ,oa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okjk.klh }kjk izLrqr tkWp vk[;k fnukad 25-01-2020 o 19-03-2020 ds vk/kkj ij mDr vjkth ds ckcr vo/kujk;u flag vkfn] ckck flag ;kno vkfn] xksiky ;kno vkfn] lgnsbZ nsoh iRuh fcjtw izlkn vkfn }kjk izLrqr vkifRr fujLr dh tkrh gSA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okjk.klh }kjk izLrqr fgLlk QkV ds vuqlkj mDr vkjkth ls vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk izfrdj Hkqxrku izHkkfor dkLrdkjks dks lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;] ijUrq izfrdj Hkqxrku djus ls iwoZ ykHkkFkhZ;ksa ls bl vk'k; dk vuqcU/ku i= ys fy;k tk; fd] ;fn Hkfo"; esa bl vkjkth ls vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds LokfeRo ds lacak esa fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk ykHkkFkhZ;ksa ds fo:) dksbZ izfrdwy vkns'k ikfjr gksrk gS] rks izfrdj izkIr djus okys Hkw&Lokeh ;k mlds okfjl e; izpfyr cSad C;kt lfgr izfrdj dh /kujkf'k okil djus gsrq ck/; gksxsaA ;fn blesa dksbZ fgyk&gokyh djsxk rks bls fof/kd :i ls Hkw&jktLo ds cdk;s dh HkkWfr muds py&vpy lEifRr ls olwy fd;k tk;sxkA"
These respondents no. 4 to 7 later sought review of the said order on the ground of procedural irregularity committed by the said Authority who as stated glossed over the contention that against the consolidation in favour of the present petitioner, they have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and thus the consolidation order was not final. In these facts situation the Authority concern passed the following order:
"esjs }kjk iqu% i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZx.k f'ko'kadj vkfn }kjk ;g rF; Nqik;k x;k fd mDr vjkth ds ckor izkFkhZx.k ,oa vkifRrdrkZx.k ds chp LoRo dk okn cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okjk.klh }kjk Hkh mDr vjkth ds ckcr izkIr vkifRr;ks ds dze esa iszf"kr tkWp vk[;k fnukad 25-01-2020 esa vkifRrdrkZ xksiky vkfn ds vkifRr ds dze esa LoRo ds ckor fdlh eqdnes ds izpfyr gksus dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, esjs }kjk izkFkhZx.k ,oa vU; dkLdkjks dks fu/kkZfjr izfrdj dk Hkqxrku djus gsrq vkns'k fnukad 23-03-2020 ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vkifRrdrkZx.k }kjk izLrqr vkifRr ds dze esa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okjk.klh }kjk izsf"kr tkWp vk[;k fnukad 01-07-2020 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fgLlk QkV ds dze la0 01 yxk;r 07 ds dkLrdkjks ,oa vkifRrdrkZx.k ds chp LoRo dk okn cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA vr,o mi;qZDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkifRrdrkZ.k dh vkifRr Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr tkWp vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij esjs }kjk vjkth la0 552 ls vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds fu/kkZfjr izfrdj Hkqxrku gsrq ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-03-2020 es vkaf'kd la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vjkth esa izHkkfor vU; dkLrdkjks ds fu/kkZfjr va'k ij fdlh dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA vkifRrdrkZx.k dks dsoy fgLlk QkV ds dze la0 01 yxk;r 07 ds dkLrdkj f'ko'kadj] jketru] jkts'oj] lR;sUnz o jkts'k iq=x.k jktcyh txoUrh iRuh jktcyh o laxhrk nsoh iRuh /khjsUnz ds fu/kkZfjr va'k ij vkifRr gSA ftlds ckor cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds U;k;ky; esa LoRo dk okn fopkjk/khu gSA mDr vjkt ds fu/kkZfjr izfrdj dk Hkqxrku esjs }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds dze esa izkFkhZx.k dks fn;k tk pqdk gSA pwWfd izkFkhZx.k ,oa vkifRrdrkZx.k ds chp LoRo dk okn cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdUnh ds U;k;ky; esa izpfyr gSA bl fy, Hkqxrkfur izfrdj ftlds vkgj.k&forj.k ij jksd yxk fn;k x;k gS] ftldk fjdojh fd;k tkuk fof/kd ,oa vkSfpR;iw.kZ gksxkA Hkqxrkfur /kujkf'k dk fjdojh Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh; jktekxZ izkf/kdj.k okjk.klh ds dsUnzh; [krs esa izsf"kr djus gsrq 'kk[kk izcU/kd] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] eaxyiqj dks i= izsf"kr fd;k tk;A pwWfd vkifRrdrkZ ,oa izkFkhZx.k ds chp LoRo dk fookn fufgr gS] ftlds fuLrkj.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh; jktekxZ vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 3 ,p¼4½ ds rgr l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks ugha gS] cfYd mDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr nhokuh U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA vr% fookfnr izdj.k dks vko';d vfHkys[kks lfgr vfUre fuLrkj.k gsrq nhokuh U;k;ky; dks lUnfHkZr fd;k tk;A"
Though it is contended that the Authority concern committed a jurisdictional error in review of its own order as passing with an order in purported exercise of his powers under Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Authority is functus officio. Though prima facie the submissions are attractive; however on deeper probe, it is observed that procedural irregularity crept in the earlier order on the presumption that the consolidation proceedings have attained finality. Whereas, in fact there were appeals filed by the objector and were pending consideration before appropriate forum. Moreso, the said fact was disclosed in the objection but were glossed over by the Authority which was an error apparent in the face of record.
In Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others; 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 it is held:-
"13. ........................ Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the court in Patel Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal."
Similarly view is reiterated in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another; (2005) 13 SCC 777 wherein it is held:
"19. ............. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits (sic ascertains whether it has committed) a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the court or quasi-judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal it was held that once it is established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be reheard and decided again."
In view whereof in the case at hand as there accrued procedural irregularity, in our considered opinion it was within the competence of the Authority concern to have modified its earlier order.
There being no jurisdiction error, no indulgence is caused.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021
A. V. Singh
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)