evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

SIDDAPPA UJANAPPA IVIADAR

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by the Amendment Act, C 19M-Applicability of

The applicability of the provisions of Ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was in question in these appeals.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The controversy in this appeal is no longer res integra, as the points are already covered by the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court.* Consequently, the benefits granted pursuant to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @6% per annum and also solatium @15% on the enhanced compensation. [749-C-D]

*Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and KS.

Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Karnataka High Court in M.S.A. No. 79 of 1987.

M. Vcerappa for the Appellant.

G Kiran Suri for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The Registry's report dated August 14, 1995 indicates that S.S. Typai, the sole respondent in SLP (C) No. 9906 of 1987 (present SLP), was dead H as per the postal endorsement. We, therefore, directed the learned counsel 748 •·

....

SPL. LANDACQN. OFFICER v. S.U. MADAR

74Y

for the petitioner-State to take steps to bring on record the legal repre- A sentatives of the solerespondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Dharwad, in his letter dated 17th October, 1995 had stated that said S.S. Tyapi is still alive and he is presently running a tea shop near bus depot at Gangavati. Under these circumstances, the vostal endorsement obviously is incorrect. Therefore, there is no need to bring B the legal representatives of the respondent on recorcl.

Leave granted.

The controversy in case is not longer res intergra. The applicability of the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition C Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984), is in question in this matter. These points have already been covered by two Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593. In view of these Constitution Bench judgments the appeal is to be allowed. Consequently, the benefits granted pursuant D to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum and also solatium @ 15% on the enhanced compensation.

The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without E costs.

G.N .

Appeal allowed.
A PRAMlLA • v.

RAMESHWAR AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 3, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Hindu Maniage Act, 1955.

S.13-B--Divorce by mutual consent-At the instance of the Court, C parties agreeing to settle the dL1pute on husband paying wife Rs. 700 per month-Decree of divorce by mutual consent to be effective from date of judgment of lower appellate Cowt.

In the present appeal by special leave arising out of the proceedings under S.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the parties agreed to settle D the dispute on the suggestions given by this Court.

Disposing of the appeal filed by the wife, this Court

HELD : Respondent No. 1 would pay to appellant a sum of Rs. 700 (Rupees Seven hundred) per month starting from November 1, 1995 on or E before 5th of every succeeding month. All the pending proceedings between the parties stand closed. There shall be a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with effect from the date of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, i.e., from December 22, 1989. (769-B]

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.90 of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 171 of 1990.

G A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.

V.C. Daga and Mrs. Vrinda Dhar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted. 768 ·-

PRAMILAv. RAMESHWAR 769

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, they agreed across A the Bar, at the suggestion of the Court , that respondent No. 1 would pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 700 (Rupees seven hundred) per month starting from November 1, 1995 on or before 5th of every succeeding month. All the pending proceedings between the parties stand closed.

There shall be a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, with effect from the date of the Judgment of the lower appellate Court, i.e., from December 22, 1989. In case the respondents commit any default in payment of alimony the appellant would be at liberty to have it recovered by arrest and detention in prison.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal disposed of.
' -

MOHD. QAISER A

L.K. SINHA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 6, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, .1.1.J B

Contempt of Court :

Order of Court-Non-compliance of-Application for initiating conte111pt proceedings against respondents-StejJS taken to con1ply ivith C Order-Adn1inistrative action initiated against c1ring ofjl"cials--Coun accept~ ing unconditional apology tendered by re,,1Jondents-Direction given to subn1it repo1t of adntinistrative action and its result.

The appellant, a formar Railway employee, filed the present con D tempt petition against the respondent, who at the relevant time was functioning as General Manager, Northern Railway.

Disposing of the petition, this Court

HELD : The petitioner was reported to have refused to accept the E cheque, which had been handed over to his counsel across the Bar. The compliance has been made though belatedly. The respondent stated that action wa.s initiated against the erring otlicials who have defaulted in compliance of the order of this Court. He would submit the report of the action taken and result thereof. lJnt.:onclitional apology accepted. [794-C-D] F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) No. 79 of 1995.

Civil Appeal No. 5718 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.91 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in T.A. No. 813 of 1986.

N.S. Baist for the Petitioner/Appellant.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

Altaf Ahamed, Additional Solicitor General and A.D.N. Rao for the Respomlents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

In the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is staled that the General Manager came to know of the order of this Court for the first time on September 27, 1995 and immediately he directed payment of the amount.

A cheque had been drawn in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on September 29, 1995 and the cheque was offered to the petitioner.

It is slated that he refused to accept the cheque on October 1, 1995 and then he was informed of the offer by Registered post with A.O. The cheque has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner across the Bar.

Under these circumstances, the compliance has been made, though belatedly.

It is stated by the General Manager that action was initiated against D the erring officials who had defaulted in compliance of the order of this Court. General Manager is directed to submit the report of the action taken and the result thereof to the Registry within 60 days from to-day. We accept the unconditional apology. The contempt proceedings are accordings disposed of.

R.P.

Petitioner disposed of.
SAKTI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, RAMPACHODAVARAM,

EAST GODA VARI DISTT., ANDHRA PRADESH

R.K. RAGALA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 6, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. K.IRPAL, JJ.]

Se1vice Law :

Depa1tmental proceedings-Show cause notice lo delinquent-High C Court quashing show cause notice-Meanwhile employee superannuated-Held, though High Cowt not justified in inteifering at notice stage, since employee has superannuated no useful pwpose would be seived to continue the proceedings.

The appellant filed the appeal by special leave against the judgment D of the High Court quashing the show cause notice issued to respondent No.1.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : Though the High Court was not justified in interfering at the notice stage, since the respondent has retired from service, no useful purpose would be served to continue the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice which was quashed by the High Conrt. However, if the children of the respondent lay any Claim on the basis that they are Scheduled Tribes, the appropriate authorities would decide their claim in accordance with law. (796-C-D]

K.wnuri Madhwi Patil v.Additional Commissioner, (1994] 6 SCC 241 and Director of T1ibal Welfare Govemmem of A.P. v. Laveti Giri &Am:, JT

(1995) 3 SC 684, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10754 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.94 of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in W.A. No. 917 of 1992.

H 795

, SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Dr. M.P. Raju and M.K.D. Namboodiri, for the Appellant. '

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Permission lo file S.L.P. is granted.

Leave granted.·

Since the first r c>nondent now stands retired from service, no useful purpose will be served o continue the proceedings pursuant lo the show cause notice which w;, s quashed by the High Court. No doubt the High Court was not justified in exercising its power to nip the action in the bud C at the notice stage itself. As regards the law, recently this Court has considered the controversy and laid the law in Kumari Madhuri Patil v.

Additional Commissioner, [1994] 6 SCC 241 and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Gi1i & Alli'., JT (1995) 3 SC 684. The ratio of the High Court decision is no longer good law.

D Under these circumstances, we think that no useful purpose will be

served to continue the proceedings. However, if the children of the first respondent lay any claim on the basis that they are Scheduled Tribes, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to take appropriate decision or action as is warranted under law.

The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.

R.P.

Appeal disposed of. '
JAGDISH PRASAD A v

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995

K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Compassionate Appointment on death of employee-Minor son-Claim for compassionate appointment on attaining majori(f-Held not C pennissible.

The appellant, who was four years old at the time of his father's death who died in harness, filed a writ petition on attaining majority seeking compassionate appointment but the same was dismissed. In appeal to this Court it was contended that the appellant was minor at the D time of his father's death but the compassionate circumstance continued till date requiring examination of his case on compassionate grounds.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD ; The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. If appellant's contention is accepted, it would amount to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. [178-C-E] // CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTioN': Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 1995. / / From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.95 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 1994.

Basudev Prasad, Ajit Kumar Sinha and Sunil Prasad for the Appellant.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

The High Court had dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. The admitted fact is that he was four years old at the time when his father died in harness in the year

1971. He filed the writ petition after attaining majority in 1994 for a direction to appoint him on compassionate grounds which was negatived.

It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the Court is required to examin~ whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in parness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress cause to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. It other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged de hors the recruitment rules.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.
MIS PACKRAFf (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS A

DIRECTOR V.S. MANN v.

U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995 B

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Contempt of Court

Law laid down by Supreme Cowt-ls law underA1ticle 141-Action in C violation of law laid down-Held appropriate remedy is judicial review and not contempt proceedings.

This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the properties of the appellant-defaulter were brought to sale by the respondent-Financial Corporation in violation of the guidelines laid down by D this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case*.

Dismissing the petition, this Court

HELD : The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court. [180-C]

*Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, [1993] 2 SCC 279, referred to.

CONTEMPT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995.

Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.90 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 13916 of 1987.

Mahavir Singh, M.S. Dahiya, Ms. Kusum Singh and B.S. More for

the Petitioner.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, (1993] 2 SCC 279 has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.

The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.

Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

Petition dismissed.
DAKSHABEN B. PATEL

THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. OF DAMAN AND DIU AND 4 ORS.

NOVEMBER 10, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Se1vice Law:

Regulmisation-Tlibunal extending time for obtaining M. Phil De- C gree-Employee obtaining the degree within the extended time-Case to be

refen-ed to UPSC for regulmisation-Directions issued.

This appeal is against the Tribunal's order dated January 13, 1992 extending six months' time to obtain the M. Phil Degree.

D Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The Notification dated July 6, 1992 clearly shows that the appellant has obtained the degree in M. Phil and she is one of the candidates declared by the Board of Examiners as eligible for degree of M.

Phil in Economics. Respondents are directed to refer the case of the E appellant for regularisation to the UPSC which would be done according to rules. [437-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10539 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.95 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in Misc. P. No. 1269/94 in O.A. No. 1177 of 1993.

K. Madhava Reddy and P.D. Sharma for the Appellant.

K. Lahiri, B.K. Prasad, Niranjana Singh, S.N. Tardol, Ms. Sushma Suri and C.S. Babu for the Respondent No. 1 for UPSC.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted.

D.B.PATELv. U.T.OFDAMANANDDIU 437

The Tribunal, vide order dated January 13, 1992 with the consent of A the counsel for the respondents, had extended six months' time to obtain the M. Phil Degree. The Notification dated July 6, 1992 clearly shows that the appellant has obtained the degree in M. Phil and she is one of the candidates declared by the Board of Examiners as eligible for degree of M. Phil in Economics. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and O.A. stands disposed of.

Respondents are directed to refer the case of the appellant for regularisation to the UPSC which would be done according to rules.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
AMITA KAUSHISH AND ORS.

SANJA Y KAUSHISH AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 16, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Art. 136-Special leave jwisdiction-Direction of Division Bench of C High Cowt for listing a matte1~Not disposed of-High Cowt requested to fix early date before end of the yea1~Seeking approp1iate interlocutory relief '--Not precluded by stay of tlial of the suit.

This appeal is against the High Court's (Division Bench) direction to list the matter on a particular day for final hearing.

Disposing of the matter, this Court

HELD : 1. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, the High Court is requested to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year. [443-B]

2. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory relief as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances. [443-C]

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11192 of 1995. r

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.94 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. (OS) No. 221 of 1991.

G Rishi Kesh for the Appellants.

Amit Chadha and Ms. Indra Sawhney for the Respondent No. 1.

Kapil Sibal and K. J. John, for the Respondent No. 2.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :

A KAUSHISH v. S.KAUSHISH 443

Leave granted.

The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal F AO (OS) No. 221/91 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court.

The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the appeal for final hearing on October 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would appear that there is long drawn litigation in, ter se parties. Since the time B fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year.

The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order C by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal Disposed of.
RAJPAL A v.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 20, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Regulmisation-Similarly situated persons already regularised-Appellant to be taken into se1vice and regularised-However, he will not be entitled C to back wages but shall get all other consequential benefits.

In this appeal against the High Court's order, the appellant prayed for regularisation.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Since the persons similarly situated were admittedly taken into service and their services have been regularised, the appellant, who is the only person left out in the field, also stands in the same position. On this special circumstances, he is also entitled to the same relief. [482-B]

2. The respondents are directed to take the appellant int9 service within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

But the appellant would not be entitled to the back-wages; he would, however, get all other consequential benefits. [ 482-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11401 of F 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.92 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 1065 of 1992.

S.M. Hooda, Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Appellant.

Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned. 481

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

Leave granted.

In view of the order passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3099- 3100/85 & batch, the persons similarly situated were admittedly taken into service and their services have been regularised. Under these circumstances, since the appellant, who is the only person left out in the field, also stands in the same position, we think, on this special circumstances, he is also entitled to the same relief.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. But the appellant would not be entitled to the back-wages; he would, however, get all other consequential C benefits. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.