Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh(D)Thru Lrs

3. The facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations one after   the   other   and   faced   with   a   situation   that   it   was   likely   to   be dismissed,   he   would   withdraw   it;   again,   file   it   on   new   grounds,   or having lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime,   in   different   proceedings   by   playing   fraud,   getting   unjust enrichment   by   receiving   compensation   at   the   expense   of   public exchequer.

4. The facts in the instant case reveal that Late Rajinder Singh, son of   erstwhile   ruler   Late   Maharaja   Padam   Singh   was   Jagirdar   of   the land, and thus was recorded as owner of thousands of bighas of land in Tehsil Rampur, Sub­Tehsil Nankhari and Tehsil Rohru of erstwhile Mohasu district which is presently a part of Shimla district and Tehsil Nichhar of district Kinnaur of State of Himachal Pradesh.

5. The land in village ‘Jhakri’ of 393 khasra numbers admeasuring 1011 bighas, 6 Biswas was declared to have vested in the State under section 27 of the Abolition Act and the intermediary Rajinder Singh as per order dated 14.11.1962 was permitted to retain only 64.12 bighas of   land   which   was   under   his   personal   cultivation.   In   Himachal Pradesh,   one   acre   comprises   5   bighas   of   land.   Vide   order   dated 19.9.1964 passed by the Assistant Collector, the order of vesting was modified to the extent that he was given 13 bighas 12 Biswas of land comprised in Khatauni No.1 out of 14 Khasra numbers, i.e., 14, 122, 125, 142, 143, 165, 212, 238, 241, 288, 423, 494, 511 and 512. Some of the aforesaid survey numbers were unmeasured. However, the fact remains   that   the   total   area   which   was   found   to   be   under   personal cultivation, was 13 bighas, 12 Biswas.

8. As against the order passed by the Compensation Officer dated 12.4.1966,   the   appeal   was   preferred   before   the   District   Judge, Mahasu. The appeal was partly allowed and the direction which was made of deduction of Rs.1703.25 was set aside and the payment of entire Rs.28,019.45 was ordered without aforesaid deduction.

17. The area in question has also declared a surplus in 1980 and acquired   by   State   under   section   11   of   Ceiling   Act   before   the   land acquisition   was   started   in   1987   and   the   order   dated   10.6.1980 declaring 10,027.5 Bighas of land as surplus so far as Rajinder Singh was concerned attained finality as it was not questioned by him.

18. As   against   the   order   dated   10.11.1993   declaring   additional approximately 9000 bighas of land as surplus, the appeal was filed, the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 30.8.1996. Against the   said   appellate   order   revision   was   filed   before   the   Financial Commissioner   and   the   same   was   dismissed   on   18.1.2002.   On 1.8.2013 the Commissioner passed an order upholding the mutation order   against   which   revision   was   filed   before   the   Financial Commissioner.   Ultimately  the   review   petition   was   also   dismissed   as not maintainable which the appellant is stated to have questioned. 12

19. With respect to the present acquisition proceedings out of which appeal arises, notification under section 4 was issued on 9.1.1987 for the acquisition of land for H.P. State Electricity Board for construction of   an   approach   road   at   Jhakri.   The   Electricity   Board   was   later   on replaced by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC) and later on by the appellant Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 24.2.1989 determining the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000 per bigha. However, it was observed in the award   that   there   was   a   dispute   about   the   ownership   of   Rajinder Singh.   Hence,   it   was   ordered   that   compensation   should   not   be disbursed   in   view   of   the   pendency   of   ceiling   proceedings.   It   be deposited in a bank instead of court. A reference was sought under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the   LA   Act’).   The   Reference   Court   vide   award   dated   23.7.1991 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per bigha.

20. Another   acquisition   proceeding   was   initiated   by   issuance   of notification   under   section   4   which   was   published   in   the   Official Gazette for the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of residential colony for the Jhakri Hydel Power Project. On 11.7.1988 amended notification under section 4 was issued. On 27.2.1991 award was passed according to the classification of the land. On 4.7.1991, a supplementary award  was  passed. The  references  were made  to the 13 Court. The Reference Court awarded Rs.1 lakh per bigha vide award dated 27.3.1997.

21. As   against   the   award   passed   by   the   Reference   Court   appeals were preferred before the High Court. It was contended that the land acquisition   proceedings   were   commenced   in   collusion   with   the Government officials. The land stood vested in the Government under the   Abolition   Act.   There   was   no   question   of   acquiring   the   same.   A prayer was  made  in  the  appeals  to  file  additional  documents  under Order 41 Rule XXVII and to amend the written statement. The High Court dismissed the said applications along with appeals.

55. Civil Suit No.15/1970 was dismissed on merits. Thereafter in the first appeal, it was withdrawn by Rajinder Singh before the Division Bench on 23.6.1986. Order dated 23.6.1986 passed by the High Court of   withdrawal   of   C.S.   No.15   of   1970   in   first   appeal   No.9/1973   is extracted hereunder:

(emphasis supplied)

Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

38.   The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose,  a  case is  decided  by  a  competent   Court  of Law   after hearing   the   parties   and   an   order   is   passed   in   favour   of   the applicant/plaintiff which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides the 55 appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise,   the   doctrine   of   merger   also   gets   attracted.   All   orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.

78. Resultantly,   we   allow   the   appeals   and   direct   that   the compensation that has been withdrawn by Late Rajinder Singh or his LRs. in the case of land acquisition, in original proceedings or under section 28­A shall be refunded along with interest at the rate of 12 percent   per   annum   within   3   months   from   today   to   the 60 appellants/State, as the case may be, and compliance be reported to this Court. The appeals are accordingly allowed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.