Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kanhaiya Lal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 October, 2018
Bench: Kurian Joseph, S. Abdul Nazeer
1
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.36589/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-09-2017
in WC No.37187/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.140412/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT )
IA 140412/2017,132943/2018, in
Date : 09-10-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR
Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG
Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have a grievance with respect Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to the compensation for their acquired land. The POOJA ARORA Date: 2018.10.13 10:53:44 IST Reason: compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.39 per square yard in a compromise dated 05.10.1999 2 entered before the Reference Court during proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
It is the case of the petitioners that the very same Court had granted Rs.65 per square yard by its order dated 27.08.1999 in respect of the land acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose and in the same village. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court that the poor villagers, because of their dire need for money, apparently entered into a compromise with the respondent-authorities without being aware of their entitlement for a higher compensation.
It is also pointed out that in several other cases in respect of the same acquisition from the same village people have been granted Rs.65 per square yard. However, the counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority submit that once there is a compromise before a Court, the same cannot be reopened collaterally in different proceedings. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we do not find any reason as to why 3 the petitioners should not go back to the Reference Court and seek re-opening of the compromise on the submissions urged before this Court, some of which are referred above. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we dispose of this special leave petition with liberty to the petitioners to go back to the Reference court for re-opening the compromise. All contentions of both the sides are left open. However, it is made clear that in the event of the Reference court deciding to reopen the case by condoning the delay, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any interest on the compensation thus fixed from the date of compromise dated 05.10.1999 to the date of approaching the Reference court for reopening.
(POOJA ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR