Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSHRI RISAL SINGH

Citation: 1997 INSC 448
Decided: 29 April 1997
Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYS SAGHIR AHMADG B PATTANAIK

Holding

Appeals having become final, the question of reducing the compensation need not be examined; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Union of India challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by a reference court in a land acquisition proceeding. The acquisition was made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compensation was initially set by the Land Acquisition Officer and later increased by the civil court. The Delhi High Court had disposed of 161 appeals arising from the same batch of cases by a common judgment, rendering those appeals final. The Union of India sought to have the Supreme Court reduce the compensation awarded. The Court held that since the High Court’s common judgment had become final for the majority of the appeals, there was no need to revisit the merits of the compensation issue, and therefore dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to file a review if other appeals remain pending. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court should entertain an appeal seeking reduction of compensation when the High Court's common judgment on the batch of appeals has become final

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1)

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationreference courtappeal finalityspecial leave petitionreduction of compensation

Judgment

                      UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                                A
                                       v.
                           SHRI RISAL SINGH

                              APRIL 29, 1997

             (K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND                              B
                      G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

      Compensation-Enhanced by reference court-High Court disposed of C
all appeals by a common judgment-Appeal by Union of India to Supreme
Court in one matter to reduce compensation-Held, appeals having been
allowed to become final, question of reducing the compensation need not be
gone into-Appeal dismissed with liberty to file review if it is pointed out that
appeals have been filed against rest of the matters.
                                                                             D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3572 of
1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Delhi High
Court in R.F.A. No. 203 of 1991.
                                                                             E
        K. Lahiri, Y.P. Mahajan and S.N. Terdol for the Appellants.

      A.B. Rohtagi, A. Mariarputham, Vinode Yadav and Aruna Mathur
for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                      F
        Delay condoned.

        Leave granted.

     This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of Delhi High     G
Court, made on October 30, 1991 in RFA No. 203/91.

       Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984
(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 H
                                    1105
    1106                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A reference, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,000 and
    Rs. 25,000 per Bigha. On appea~ 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 merits.
    When we asked the learned counsel for the appellants to give the number
B   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
C   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
D   considered accordingly.

             The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. No
    costs.                                                                   ·

    R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search