LexSPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) versus N. VASUDEVRAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_(
I
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.)
v.
N. V ASUDEV A RAO AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 28, 2007
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND
LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
Land Acquisition:
Acquisition/Resumption of land by Government without payment
A
B
c
of ex-gratia-Challenged by assignee/owner-Single judge of High
Court directing authorities to consider representation of petitioners
for payment of ex-gratia-Not complied with by authorities-
Contempt petition-Single Judge directed payment of ex-gratia for D
entire extent of the land-LP A dismissed by High Court-On appeal
Held: LPA maintainable-Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of
the High Court addressed the basic issue and came to an abrupt
conclusion-Hence, the order passed by the High Court set aside-
The authorities directed to consider the matter afresh-Directions
issued
E
Judicial restraint-High Court distinguished the judgment
delivered by Supreme Court on the ground that no elaborate discussion
in the judgment-Such an observation by the High Court violative of
judicial discipline.
F
The land in question, the Government land, was allegedly
assigned to the respondents on the basis ofpattas. Later, the land
was acquisitioned by the authorities without payment of ex-gratia.
Respondents filed writ petitions contending that the authorities have
resumed their land without payment of ex-gratia. Single Judge of G
the High Court disposed of the writ petitions directing respondents
to make a detailed representation to the authorities and the
authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate
625
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A order. The authorities did not make ex-gratia payments to
respondents. Aggrieved respondents filed Contempt petitions before
the High Court. The Single judge of the High Court directed payment
of ex-gratia payment for the entire extent of the land. Appellant
authorities and others filed LP As before the High Court against the
B order passed by the Single Judge which were dismissed by the High
Court. Hence the present appeals.
Appellant-authority contented that the Single Judge of the High
Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done
while dealing with the contempt petitions and that the LP A was not
C maintainable.
Respondents-assignee ofland submitted that there was clear
violation of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions
and there was blatant attempt by the authorities to deny their
D legitimate claim; and that the land was resumed on and nothing has
been paid to them as compensation.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It appears that there is also dispute about the area,
E so in the contempt petition no direction could have been given in the
manner done. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that
the LPA is not maintainable. In view of what has been stated in
Midnapore Peoples 'Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and
Ors., the LPA was clearly maintainable. (630-F]
F
Union of India & Ors. v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1SCC613;
Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261 and
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and
Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399, relied on.
G
1.2. The High Court distinguished the judgment delivered in
Lalith Mathur 's case on the ground that there was no elaborate
discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason is discernible.
To say the least, the alleged distinguishing feature as pointed out
by the High Court not to follow the judgment cannot be said to be
graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial discipline. It has been
H
-{
I
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) v.
627
N. VASUDEVARAO [PASA YAT,J.]
stated that payments have been made to some persons and no A
departure could be made in the present case. Actually there is no
definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was an
excavated land. (631-B, CJ
Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao, (2000] 10 SCC 285, B
referred to.
1.3. It appears from record that three counter affidavits have
been filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was
resumed or excavated land. There is no definite material in this
regard brought by the respondents on record. Three counter C
affidavits filed by the respondents clearly indicate their definite
stand. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High
Court addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came to
abrupExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.