LexFIDA HUSSAIN & ORS. versus MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 290 ~-~ A FIDA HUSSAIN & ORS. v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2006) B JULY 19, 2011 ' [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c ss. 4 and 11 -Acquisition of land in two villages - Award by Land Acquisition Officer upheld by High Court and finally by Supreme Court in Gafar~ case - Appeals by some other land owners of both the r villages for enhancement of " compensation - HELD: The question of adequacy of D compensation for the lands acquired in these two villages under the same notifications has been gone into by Supreme Court in the case of Gafar wherein the Court after meticulously examining all the legal contentions canvassed by the parties to the /is, took the view that the evidences relied upon by the E reference court while enhancing the compensation were not reliable, and, therefore, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the reference court and restoring the award passed by the LAO - The judgment in Gafar's case does not require reconsideration - Therefore, it would not be ., ' proper for the Court to take a different view, on the ground that - F what was considered in Gafar's case was on a different fact situation - Res judicata - Precedent. Recovery of differential compensation amount from land owners - Amount of compensation enhanced by reference • .. G court - High Court restoring the award of Land Acquisition Officer - Supreme Court upholding the order of High Court - Plea that the amount paid by way of compensation pursuant to judgment of reference court be not recovered - HELD: The land acquisition in question is of two decades old, and it is H 290 FIDA HUSSAIN & ORS. v. MORADABAD 291 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR . ....., plausible that the landowners have utilized the compensation A · amount paid for one purpose or the other - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is clarified that the respondents are restrained from recovering the amounts paid as compensation or enforcing security offered while withdrawing the compensation amount B ~ pursuant to order passed by the reference court. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court- Binding . effect of- Land acquisition - Compensation awarded by Land c Acquisition Officer upheld by Supreme Court in Gafar's case - Appeals by other land owners of the same villages whose lands were acquired under the same notifications whereunder ..,. the land were acquired of claimants in Gafar's case - HELD: Only the principles of law that emanate from a judgment of D Supreme 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 the same as in the previous case, the judgment of the Court in the former is binding in the latter, for the reason that E the question of law before the Court is already settled - Thus, 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 - Precedent. " NATURAL JUSTICE." F Opportunity of hearing - In some of the appeals before the High Court, award of Land Acquisition Officer was upheld - Decision of High Court upheld by Supreme Court in Gafar's r case - Subsequent appeals by other claimants on the G grounds that in some cases their counsel were not heard while in some others applications for substitution of L. Rs. of deceased appellants were not considered before the High Court - HELD: On perusal of the appeal paper books of the instant appeals, it is evident that in some of the appeals the I . H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A ..... presence of the counsel before the High Court is recorded - It is settled position that the Court speaks through its order and whatever stated therein has to be read as correct - Therefore, it cannot be said that counsel were not heard in all the matters against which the appeals are filed - As regards B applications for substitution, the Court would have remitted the matter back to the High Court to give an opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives concerned and decide the appeals on merits - That, however, would only be a formality because having regard to the law laid down by the Court in c Gafar's case, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.