Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Kumar Gupta Family Trust vs Union Of India on 14 January, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.660 OF 2008
RAM KUMAR GUPTA FAMILY TRUST ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A No.445 of 2005, dated 17.02.2005.
2. The facts in brief are : An area of about 466 Bighas of land in village Ghevra was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act”) by notification dated 18.03.1985. The public purpose for which the acquisition was proposed was construction of LPG bottling plant of the Indian Oil Corporation.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at three different rates by classifying Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the land in three categories i.e. Block A, Block B and Sukhbir Paul Kaur Date: 2016.01.16 12:57:05 IST Reason: Block C. The rates for the said categories of land are 2 as follows :
Block A Rs.14,000/- per Bigha
Block B Rs.12,000/- per Bigha
Block C Rs.10,000/- per Bigha
4. Aggrieved by the said compensation, a
reference was made under Section 18 of the Act at the instance of one/some of the owner(s) whose land was acquired. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.23,970/-, Rs.21,970/- and Rs.19,970/- respectively for the three categories of land, as mentioned above.
5. Dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded by the Reference Court, the land owners filed appeals under Section 54 before the High Court, which were registered as R.F.A. Nos. 811 of 1988, 191 of 1989 and 193 of 1989. The said appeals were decided by the High Court on 23.07.1992 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.26,775/- for Block A, Rs.24,775/- for Block B and Rs.22,775/- for Block C. Admittedly, the order of the High Court has attained finality.
6. The appellant whose land was acquired by the same notification had also sought a reference under 3 Section 18 of the Act, which was allowed by the Reference Court by order dated 24.03.2001. The Reference Court followed the order of the High Court passed in R.F.A. No.811 of 1988 and allowed compensation at the rate awarded by the High Court.
7. Against the order of Reference Court dated 24.03.2001, the appellant had filed an appeal being R.F.A. No.403 of 2001 for enhancement of compensation under Section 54 of the Act, whereas the Union of India, being aggrieved, had filed a separate appeal being R.F.A. No.445 of 2001 before the High Court.
8. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation i.e. R.F.A. No.403 of 2001 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court on 04.01.2005. The appeal filed by the Union of India i.e. R.F.A. No.445 of 2001 came up for consideration before the High Curt on 17.02.2005. By the impugned order, the High Court has reversed the order passed by the Reference Court and restored the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is against the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 17.02.2005 passed in R.F.A. No.445 of 2005, filed by 4 the Union of India, that the present appeal has been filed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are left with no doubt that this appeal by the claimant has to be allowed. The award of compensation for acquisition of land under the same notification has been settled by the High Court in R.F.A. No.811 of 1988 by its judgment and order dated 23.07.1992 which has attained finality in law. It is the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in terms of the said order of the High Court that was challenged in R.F.A. No.445 of 2005 filed by the respondent-Union of India. The said fact which goes to the root of the matter was either not pointed out to the High Court at the time when the appeal of the Union of India was considered or having been pointed out the same was not adequately taken note of by the High Court. In the said facts, there can be no manner of doubt that the order of the High Court under challenge in the present appeal is per incuriam and cannot be sustained in law. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 17.02.2005 passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Reference 5 Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.26,775/- for Block A, Rs.24,775/- for Block B and Rs.22,775/- for Block C inasmuch as the said order of the Reference Court is in terms of the order dated 23.07.1992 of the High Court, which has attained finality in law. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 14, 2016
6
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 660/2008
RAM KUMAR GUPTA FAMILY TRUST Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report) Date : 14/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Ms. Shashi Kiran, Adv.
Mr. Abhiuday Chandra, Adv. For Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Zaid Ali, Adv.
For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)