UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
SHRI RISAL SINGH
APRIL 29, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
A
B
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.
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.
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 :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
D
E
F
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.
Lex