Union of India Vs. Shri Risal Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3640 of 1196)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 203 of 1991)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3640 of 1196)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 203 of 1991)
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: Shri Risal Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3640 of 1196)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 203 of 1991)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3640 of 1196)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 203 of 1991)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 29, 1997
Appearances:
K. Lahiri, Senior Advocate, Y.P. Mahajan, S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
A.B. Rohtagi, Senior Advocate, A. Mariarputham, Vinode Yadav and Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894:
Compensation
High Court by a common judgment disposed of 161 cases and orders of High Court have become final in 159 cases and one appeal dismissed by this court – Held that the court is not inclined to reduce compensation only in one case – If however appeals are filed in other cases a review application to be filed if necessary.
Compensation
High Court by a common judgment disposed of 161 cases and orders of High Court have become final in 159 cases and one appeal dismissed by this court – Held that the court is not inclined to reduce compensation only in one case – If however appeals are filed in other cases a review application to be filed if necessary.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court, made on October 30, 1991 in RFA No.203/91.
4. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on 27.7.1984 for acquiring the lands for development of the Delhi city. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.17,000/- and Rs.14,000/- per Bigha. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per Bigha. On appeal, by a common judgment, the High Court had disposed of as many as 161 appeals. We are informed that against one of the judgment from that batch, Appeal No.871/95 was filed and this Court has dismissed the SLP on the ground of delay as well as on merit. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellants to give the number of cases, though the case was adjourned from time to time, they have not been able to give any number to be tagged with this appeal for disposal. In that view of the matter, as many as 161, which we take it for the time being as 159 appeals, against the judgment, appeals have been allowed to become final; as one appeal has been dismissed by this Court solitarily, we decline to go into and examine the merits in the matter for reducing the compensation. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. In case the appellants are able to point out at a later date that the appeals have been filed against the rest of 159 appeals, liberty is given to them to file an application for review in this appeal and it should be considered accordingly.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. No costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court, made on October 30, 1991 in RFA No.203/91.
4. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on 27.7.1984 for acquiring the lands for development of the Delhi city. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.17,000/- and Rs.14,000/- per Bigha. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per Bigha. On appeal, by a common judgment, the High Court had disposed of as many as 161 appeals. We are informed that against one of the judgment from that batch, Appeal No.871/95 was filed and this Court has dismissed the SLP on the ground of delay as well as on merit. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellants to give the number of cases, though the case was adjourned from time to time, they have not been able to give any number to be tagged with this appeal for disposal. In that view of the matter, as many as 161, which we take it for the time being as 159 appeals, against the judgment, appeals have been allowed to become final; as one appeal has been dismissed by this Court solitarily, we decline to go into and examine the merits in the matter for reducing the compensation. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. In case the appellants are able to point out at a later date that the appeals have been filed against the rest of 159 appeals, liberty is given to them to file an application for review in this appeal and it should be considered accordingly.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. No costs.
