Case: Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat and Another

An extent of 825 bighas, 2 kathas, 0 lessa of land in Village Ouguri Chapari under Mouza Morangi,Golaghat in the district of Golaghat (for short "the acquired land") was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") for the construction of Numaligarh Oil Refinery (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") in Notification No. RLA/210/92/27 datedwhich was published in the Gazette onIn a meeting held in the chamber of the then Chief Minister of Assam onit was resolved that for the said compensation, inclusive of solatium, additional interest etc. at the rate of Rs. 55, 000 per bigha, would be paid. The Company also consented to payment of compensation at the said rate. But the process for fixing compensation for the acquired land by agreement of the parties did not materialise as the petitioner, owner of the land, did not accept the said rate. The acquisition proceedings were, therefore, continued under the Act and the Collector, Golaghat, proposed compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs. 10, 876 per bigha but the State Government approved Rs. 7000 per bigha only. Accordingly, the Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7000 per bigha. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector datedthe petitioner sought reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, in LA Case No. 1 of 1996, the District Judge granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 22, 000 per bigha onAggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 27 of 1997 praying for further enhancement of compensation; the Company and the Collector, Golaghat, filed First Appeals Nos. 32 and 33 of 1997, respectively, challenging the enhancement of compensation by the District Judge from Rs. 7000 to Rs. 22, 000 per bigha. The High Court by its common judgment dateddismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed the appeals of the respondents; in the result, the compensation awarded by the Collector, Golaghat, at the rate of Rs. 7000 per bigha was restored. Against that judgment of the High Court, the petitioner filed Review Application No. 54 of 1998 in the High Court. He filed Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.of 1998 also seeking leave of this Court to appeal against the said common judgment of the High Court dated99 he was permitted to withdraw the special leave petitions as his review application in the High Court was pending. Onthe said review application was dismissed by the High Court and its order is theof Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5417 of 2000. However, against the said common judgment of the High Court datedthe petitioner again filed Special Leave Petitions Nos.of 1999 delayed by 399 days. Onthis Court condoned the delay but dismissed the special leave petitions, which is theof the review petitions.

Court's reasoning:
The law in regard to review of an order of this Court is too well settled to justify an elaborate discussion on the point. Suffice it to observe that the finality of the order of the apex court of the country should not lightly beadverting to Review Petitions Nos.of 2000, we find that they are devoid of any merit. It is noted above that the petitioner having earlier challenged the common judgment of the High Court datedin Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.of 1998 withdrew the same with liberty to pursue Review Application No. 54 of 1998 filed in the High Court. Having lost in the High Court he again sought leave to appeal against the very same common judgment of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.of 1999 which were dismissed by this Court onHaving withdrawn earlier SLPs Nos.of 1998, he could not have been allowed to maintain SLPs Nos.of 1999. He cannot, in the guise of the review petitions, be permitted to revive the incompetent special leave petitions. We are not persuaded to accept the contention that the order of this Court datedsuffers from any error much less an error on the face of the record; there is absolutely no merit in the review petitions.