TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harthala have only to be dismissed. Lands acquired in village of Mukkarabbpur Held that:- We are not inclined to grant any of the reliefs that he has asked for, then we may direct that the amounts paid by way of compensation pursuant to the judgment of the Reference Court need not be recovered and the securities furnished by some of the appellants need not be enforced. This prayer is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. This request of Shri. Varma appears to be reasonable. The land acquisition in question is of two decades old, and it is plausible that the landowners have utilized the compensation amount paid for one purpose or the other. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to put an extra burden of repayment on them. Therefore, while dismissing the appeals, we clarify that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we restrain the respondents from recovering the amounts paid as compensation or enforcing security offered while withdrawing the compensation amount pursuant to order passed by the Reference Court - The appeals are dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5382 of 2006, Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeals relate to the village of Mukkarabbpur. A Notification for acquisition of the lands under the Act was issued and published on 20.08.1992. In pursuance of the Notification, the State took possession of the said lands on 06.05.1997 by paying 80% of the estimated compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per sq. meter. However, vide order dated 29.08.1997, the LAO fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 92.59 per sq. meter. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants moved the Reference Court and produced evidence in support of their claim that the prevailing rates of land in that village and its roundabouts were much higher. After giving due consideration to the claim made and the evidence on record, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 350 per sq. meter. The respondents preferred appeals to the High Court, and the same came to be allowed, reviving the award passed by the LAO. 5) Shri. M.L. Varma, learned senior counsel, appears for the appellants, and Shri. M.P. Shorawala, learned counsel, holds the brief for the respondents. 6) At the outset, it is relevant to note that the question of adequacy of compensation for the lands acquired in these two villages un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to be just, there arises no occasion for this Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. 17. In view of our conclusion as above, all the appeals relating to Harthala have only to be dismissed. 8) In respect to the lands acquired in village of Mukkarabbpur, this Court, in Gafar's case, held: 18. In respect of the lands at Mukkarrabpur, the claim for enhancement was allowed by the Reference Court in spite of the finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 adduced on behalf of the claimants was unreliable. It also found that the two sale deeds relied on by the claimant in support of the claim for enhancement were also not comparable or reliable in the light of the evidence of the claimant himself and that it has not been shown that the lands involved therein were comparable to the lands acquired. In spite of it, the Reference Court granted an enhancement only based on its award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 and on that basis the award was made at Rs. 192/- per square meter. Obviously, the award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 was set aside by the High Court. Hence, the award of the Reference Court in the case on hand bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as the parties were different. It is further argued that out of the thirty appeals that are listed before us, in the seven appeals relating to the acquisition of lands in the village of Mukkarrbpur, the matters were not shown on the cause list on the day they were disposed of. He further states that in some other cases (six appeals), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents before the High Court (appellants before us) had submitted an illness slip and had not appeared on the day, the matters were disposed of. Shri. Varma further contends that in as many as seventeen appeals before us, the Development Authority had filed applications for substitution to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased land owners and without considering and deciding the applications, the High Court could not have passed the impugned orders. Despite all these procedural infirmities, the High Court could not have allowed the Regular First Appeals filed by the State, is the contention of learned senior counsel Shri Varma. 12) Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by Shri. V.P. Rai, learned counsel, who had appeared before the High Court, in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same question is raised again before this Court, and reconsideration cannot be pleaded on the ground that relevant provisions, etc., were not considered by the Court in the former case. 15) With regard to the contention that the decision of the Court in the case of Gafar did not operate as res judicata for the present batch of cases, we are of the view that the principles of Resjudicata would apply only when the lis was inter-parties and had attained finality of the issues involved. The said Principles will, however, have no application interalia in a case where the Judgment and/or order had been passed by a Court having no jurisdiction thereof and/or involving a pure question of law. The principle of Resjudicata will, therefore, have no application in the facts of the present case. 16) To examine the other limb of the contention of the learned senior counsel that the judgment in the case of Gafar did not operate as a precedent for the present batch of cases, as no point of law was decided, this issue requires to be considered in the light of the judicial pronouncement of this Court. 17) In the case of Shenoy amp; Co. v. CTO, (1985) 2 SCC 512, a number of writ petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed by the State against the common judgment. We would like to observe that, in the fitness of things, it would be desirable that the State Government also took out publication in such cases to alert parties bound by the judgment, of the fact that an appeal had been preferred before this Court by them. We do not find fault with the State for having filed only one appeal. It is, of course, an economising procedure. 23. The judgment in Hansa Corporation case rendered by one of us (Desai, J.) concludes as follows: As we are not able to uphold the contentions which found favour with the High Court in striking down the impugned Act and the notification issued thereunder and as we find no merit in other contentions canvassed on behalf of the respondent for sustaining the judgment of the High Court, this appeal must succeed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismissed with costs throughout. To contend that this conclusion applies only to the party before this Court is to destroy the efficacy and integrity of the judgment and to make the mandate of Artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land has been laid down by the Supreme Court against the mandamus issued, which law is equally binding on me and on you? Which Court can punish a party for contempt under these circumstances? The answer can be only in the negative because the mandamus issued by the High Court becomes ineffective and unenforceable when the basis on which it was issued falls, by the declaration by the Supreme Court, of the validity of 1979 Act. 26. In view of this conclusion of ours, we do not think it necessary to refer to the other arguments raised before the High Court and which the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to raise before us also. The appeals can be disposed of on this short point stated above. The judgment of this Court in Hansa Corporation case is binding on all concerned whether they were parties to the judgment or not. We would like to make it clear that there is no inconsistency in the finding of this Court in Joginder Singh case and Makhanlal Waza case. The ratio is the same and the appellants cannot take advantage of certain observations made by this Court in Joginder Singh case for the reasons indicated above. 18) In the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have been invoked. The two decisions are, therefore, binding as precedents of this Court. We are not able to find any distinction or difference as to the ground of urgency in regard to the properties covered by these appeals. 20) It is now well settled that a decision of this Court based on specific facts does not operate as a precedent for future cases. Only the principles of law that emanate from a judgment of this Court, which have aided in reaching a conclusion of the problem, are binding precedents within the meaning of Article 141. However, if the question of law before the Court is same as in the previous case, the judgment of the Court in the former is binding in the latter, for the reason that the question of law before the Court is already settled. In other words, if the Court determines a certain issue for a certain set of facts, then, that issue stands determined for any other matter on the same set of facts. 21) The other reasons given by Shri. M.L. Varma, learned senior counsel, for contending that the case of Gafar does not apply as a precedent in other cases are threefold: (a) that seven of the present appeals relating to Mukkarrabpur were not heard due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the first appeals by the High Court. Shri. Shorawala, learned counsel for the respondent, does not seriously dispute the issue of non-listing raised by the appellants, except stating that the cause list was published under the authority of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, and it was not the practice of any Court to dispose of a matter without it being listed. 24) We have considered the contention canvassed by Shri. Varma, learned senior counsel and the affidavit filed by Shri. V.P. Rai in this regard. It is possible that due to the same nature of the matters, the learned Division Bench sitting in appeal may have considered it proper to dispose of the matters though they were not listed on the said day or the advocate for the appellants was not present. This issue is raised only in thirteen appeals filed before us. With regard to seventeen appeals, the appellants have contended that the substitution of legal heirs had not happened, and that the matter had abated. 25) It is in C.A. No. 5421 of 2006, in which the appellants have contended that the application for substitution was rejected, and by that order, the appeal had abated. We have perused the appeal pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
