LexNARPAT SINGH ETC. ETC. versus JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- + = NARPAT SINGH ETC. ETC. v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT APRIL 24, 2002 (R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Articks 136 and 142-Discretionary jurisdiction-Exercise of-Land belonging to the appellants being acquired A B for public purpose-Land acquisition officer passing award fu:ing monetary C compensation and directing allotment of plots to appellants-Litigation between parties-Compromise decree-Execution-Hi1!11 Court holding that compromise decree inexecutable as the allotment of land by an award in acquisition proceedings suffered from inherent 'lack of jurisdiction-On appeal held, on facts and circumstances not a fit case to exercise discretion under Article I 36 in favour of appellants and set aside order of High Court-Thus appeal dispased D of with certain directions-Land Acquisition Act, 1824-ss.JJ, 26 and 54. Land belonging to the appellants was acquired under the scheme for public purpose. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. It flXed monetary compensation and directed plots of 2000 or 1000 sq. yards to be allotted to the appellants. On reference, Court enhanced the compensation E upholding the allotment of plots. State filed appeals. Claimants, the State and the respondents arrived at a tripartite settlement and High Court on basis of compromise, reduced monetary compensation and directed plots to be allotted F to appellants in addition to monetary compensation. Appellants filed execution application and executing court directed issuance of warrants of possession. Objections were filed to execution application which were rejected and maintainability of the execution applicaticn was upheld. Respondents then filed civil revision which was allowed by the High Court relying on •Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam and Ors. and Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. It held the compromise decree to be inexcutable as the allotment of land by an award in G land acquisition proceedings suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the H 365 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R. A Constitution on this Court in discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extra-ordinary situations or situations occasioning B gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice. [373-D-E] 2.1. In the instant case, the land acquired from the appellants was uncultivated fallow land with no well, super-structure or habitat built thereon, C but what has been offered to each of them is developed plot of 1000 or 2000 square yards area. A developed plot of 1000 or 2000 square yards means at least 1500 or 3000 square yards of undeveloped land which is more than the area which has been acquired from them. The concept behind allotting residential plots to the persons whose land has been acquired is to rehabilitate them and to give some relief on reasonable terms because of their having been D expropriated by land acquisition proceedings. Regarding appellants the allotment of plots cannot be said to have fulfilled the object of rehabilitating appellants because though they lost their land but there is no material placed on record to hold them as having been rendered destitutes on account of either their residence or their livelihood having been lost on account of land E acquisition proceedings. [372-A, B, CJ 2.2. Inquiry Report of the Lokayukta makes a reference inter alia to the land allotted to the 12 awardees including the four appellants herein, by way of compromise although any positive finding of the allotments made to these appellants being vitiated by fraud on public office or statutory power F is not recorded. The allotments made even by way of compromise are out of the same land which was acquired for public purpose and out of which other allotments made were struck down by this Court in Dau/at Mal Jain's case. [372-G, H; 373-A] 2.3. A finding recorded by the Executing Court that before the G A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.