evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
KONDOPANT

ARJUNA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1995

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

Review Petition-Raising of additional grounds in-Held not a ground for review.

While disposing the appeal this Court stated that the declaration of the respondent, the petitioner herein, as a surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act was correct and he may file a review petitionin case he was found to be within the ceiling limit.

Dismissing the review petition, this Court

HELD : The act of declaration as a surplus holder is not disputed in the review petition. But additional grounds have been raised. Therefore, that would not be a ground to review the order. [583-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 1347 of 1995.

Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 1978

From the .Judgment and Order dated 11.7.78 of the Bombay High Court in F.A. NO. 155 of 1971.

S.V. Desh Pande for the Petitioner/Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

In our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No. 5 and also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to the appellants. Since counsel H for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported 582

....

KONDOP ANT v. ARJUNA 583

that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response A from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not B. be a ground for us to review the order.

The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

Petition dismissed.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

KORUKONDASURYANARAYANACHOWDHARY

SEPTEMBER 15, 1995

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

Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973:

C Sections 4 and 7-Agricultural Lands-Ceiling area-Computation of Land sold under compelling necessity to discharge Bank loan-Held, sale not intended to def eat provisions of the Act-Lands sold under other agreements of sale to be included in the holdings of purchaser as well as of owner.

Certain lands sold by the tenure holder were included in his holdings D for purpose of the Andhra radesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on land Holdings) Act, 1973. The tenure holder filed an affidavit stating that the lands under sale deed dated 16.10.1971 were sold under compelling necessity to discharge the loan of the appellant Bank.

Allowing the appeal in part, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The sale dated October 16, 1971 was not intended to defeat the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. (747-C]

1.2. The lands covered under two other agreements of sale shall be included in the holding of the purchaser as well as the owner as agreement of sale does not divest the rights in the land. The computation shall be made accordingly. [747-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8425 of G 1995:

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.82 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No. 935 of 1981.

K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam and T.V.S.N.

H Chari for the Appellant. 746

STATE v. K.S. CHOWDHARY 747

S. Markandeya, Ms. C. Markandeya and Ajay Singh for the Respon- A dent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

With regard to the lands covered by the sale deed dated October 16, 1971, pursuant to our directions dated 14.8.1995, the respondent has filed documents to establish that he was under compelling necessity to sell the land to discharge the loans taken from the Andhra Bank since the Bank

was proceeding against his property for recovering dues payable to the Bank. Therefore, we find that the sale dated October 16, 1971 was not C intended to defeat the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. But with regard to the lands covered by the two agreements of sale, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of. this Court and also an earlier judgment, the lands covered under those agreements shall be included in the holding of the D purchaser as well as the owner as agreement of sale does not divest the rights in the land. The computation shall be made accordingly.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
JARABANOO FIROZ SHAH MOOS

ANDHRA PRADESH CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSOCIATION,

HYDERABAD AND ORS.

AUGUST 25, 1995

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

' Appeal-Typographical mistake-Modification of order in main appeal.

A.fl application was filed for modification of the order passed in the main appeal.

Disposing the application, this Court

HELD : Some typographical mistakes had crept in the order passed D in the main appeal. To avoid further litigation between the parties it is hereby directed that the relevant part of the said order be modified in terms of the order passed in this application. The remaining part of the order would remain as it is. [94-G; 95-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3.

E IN

Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.86 of the Andhra Pradesh p High Court in C.C.C.A. No. l of 1977.

S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G This court on September 14, 1994 passed an order in the mam appeal, viz., C.A. No. 279 of 1987. As some typographical mistakes had crept in the said order and to avoid further litigation between the parties, we hereby direct the relevant part of the said order to be modified and read as under :

H "This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the 94

J.F.S. MOOS v. A.P. CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSN. 95

Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in Civil Appeal N0.1/77. A The appeal of the respondent-Association was allowed by the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Association for specific performance of the agreement dated July 26, 1967, agreeing to convey the property bearing No. 5-9-262, Hyderabad. From the averments of the appellant herself, it is clear that the agreement was for Rs. 2,42,000 but she came to know that the consideration was shown in the agreement at Rs. 2,10,000. In consequence, she lost Rs. 20,000 as she contended that the agreement was vitiated by fraud and that, therefore, the decrees cannot be enforced since

the respondents were parties to the fraud. We find no force in the contention. At best it is not the case that she did not agree to C execute the agreement. It is also not her case that she did not read the contents of the agreement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any fraud played on her. At best it can be said that the appellant is not a consenting party to the actual consideration of Rs. 2,10,000. We give the benefit to the appellant D only to the extent of her share of Rs. 20,000 and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 10,000 and further a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards interest. The order of the High Court is accordingly confirmed with the above modification ...... ".

The remaining part of the order would remain as it is.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
STATE OF KARNATAKA

MALL!NATH AND ORS.

OCTOBER 30, 1995

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984:

C S.23( IA)-Additional benefits-Held, not applicable in respect of award made prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

On the question of applicability of S.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, partly allowing the appeal filed by the State, this Court

D HELD : Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of additional amount under S.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition,

1894. (557-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 9900- E 9904 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. Nos. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986.

M. Veerappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

It is stated in the affidavit filled by Matru Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Somawa Patil, the second respon- G dent herein had left behind her son Mallinath who is respondent No. 1 in

SLP (C) No. 14220/86 as her legal representative and that since Mallinath is already on record, there is no need to bring him on record separately as legal representative. He is transposed as legal representative. Since he is already representing the estate of his deceased mother Somavva Patil, it is H accordingly recorded. 556

. I "

STATE v. MALLINAIB 557

i.-eave granted.

The controversy hinges upon the applicability of section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') as amended by Act 68 of

1984. Since the award of the Collector wa> made much prior to the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the orders of the High Court and the appellate Court are set aside to that extent. In other respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs.

R.P .

Appeal allowed.
PROPRIETOR, MIS. JABALPUR TRACTORS A

SEDMAL JAINARAIN AND ANR.

OCTOBER 30, 1995

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

Consumer Protection Act, 1985 :

Consumer disputes redressal fo1111n-Jurisdiction of-Daim for garage charges-Suit pending before competent Civil Court-Order of National Con- C sumer Dispute Redressal Commission directing to hand over possession of car to respondem-Held, not justified.

The State Consumer Forum, in respect of a claim for garage charges, held that it could not consider the claim as the matter was already pending and was snb-judice before the competent Civil Court However, the Nation D al Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed to hand over possession of the car to the respondent. Allowing the appeal of the proprietor of the Garage, this Court

HELD : The Consumer Protection Act, 1985 is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes E Redressal Commission was not justified in directing to hand over posses sion of the car to the respondent. [562-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9928 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.93 of the National Consumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991.

R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.

B.K. Satija and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondent No. 1.

Vishnu Mehra and K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent No. 2.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. • 561

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

With regard to the claim for Garage charges, C.S. No. 49-B/1990 on the file of the Illrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur is pending disposal. The State Consumer Forum had also noticed it in paragraph 26 of its order and concluded that the amount claimed by Mis. Jabalpur Tractors as Garage charges is Rs. 18,000 and this cannot be considered as the matter is already pending and is sub judice before the competent Civil Court. The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the impugned order, was not justified in directing to hand over possession of the car to the respondent.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the National Forum in First Appeal No.239/1991 dated February 18, 1993 in so far as the Garage charges are concerned is set aside. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
COMMISSIONER, SALEM MUNICIPALITY

T. KURALMANI AND ANR.

OCTOBER 30, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.1.)

Practice and Procedure :

Administrative Tiibzmal-Swnmary di; posal-He/d, Tiibzmal was not justified in summa1ily disposing of the matter without conside1ing 1iva/ contentions deserving consideration.

The appellant filed the appeal by special leave against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal disposing the matter summarily.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for D disposal, this. Court

HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, was not justified in summarily disposing of the matter without considering the rival con tentions which in the background of the facts of this case, ought to be gone into. [564-A] E

1.2. The Tribunal is free to consider the entire controversy in the light of :he Government order and pass appropriate orders according to Rules. [564-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9879 of F 1995.

Prom the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.95/24.2.95 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 3427 of 1990.

R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.

T. Raja for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. 563

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

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we think that the Tribunal, by the impugned order, was not justified in summarily disposing of the matter without considering the rival contentions which in the background of the facts of this case, ought to be gone into. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal dated 10.1.1995 made in 0.A. 3427/90 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, for a fresh disposal according to law. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits and the Tribunal is free to consider the entire controversy in the light of the Government order and pass appropriate orders according to Rules.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMARE A

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 30, 1995

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

SeJVice Law :

Appointment-Appellant handicapped because of colour b/indnes,-Selection by Public Se1vice Commission-Appointment not made due C to handicap-Held, appellant may be considered for appointment on suitable post.

The appellant was handicapped because of colour blindness. He was selected by the Public Service Commission; but could not be appointed due to his handicap. Having failed before the Maharashtra Administrative D Tribunal, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : It would be just and proper that the Government should consider. the case of the appellant to be appointed to any of the posts of E Agricultural Officer of Class II Service other than the 5 posts mentioned by the appellant in his affidavit. The appellant should submit a copy of the affidavit filed before this Court to the Department concerned for considering his case. Appointment should be made within two months. [566-EJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9856 of F 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.94 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in 0.A. No. 884 of 1993.

M.D. Adkar, S.D. Singh and Ejaz Maqbool for the Appellant.

D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

H 565

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Admittedly, the appellant is handicapped because of colour blindness. He was admittedly selected by the Public Service Commission but appointment could not be made on account of his handicap. When the matter came up on March 27, 1995, this Court while issuing notice passed order as follows :

B "Petitioners should also give the nature of the duties he had to perform and whether his colour blindness would interfere with the discharge of his duties. Respondents also would stale in this behalf of their stand. If it is needed, they can also sent the petitioner for medical examination by an expert Government Ophtholmogist or C Board."

Despite the order, the Government took no action in that behalf. On the other hand, the appellant had filed on May 2, 1995. an affidavit detailing that as per the information he had secured, there were 35 posts in the Department and only five posts required perfect vision without colour D blindness. Those five posts are mentiond in the affidavit. In other posts, colour blindness was not an impediment for him to be appointed.

Under these circumstances, we deem it just and proper that the Government should consider the case of the appellant to be appointed to any of the posts of Agricultural Officer of Class II Service other than the 5 posts mentioned by him in his affidavit. The appellant should enclose a copy of this affidavit filed before us to the Department concerned for considering his case. Appointment should be made within two months from the date of the receipt of this order.

The appeal is allowed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
BAHADUR SINGH NARODA AND ORS.

STATE OF M.P. ORS.

DECEMBER 7, 1995

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

Service Law:

Employees holding certain posts till the appointment of regularly C selected candidates-Claim for continuance on the posts-Held, relief cannot be granted since regularly selected candidates have been appointed and they have taken charge.

The appellants filed the appeal against the judgment of the M.P.

State Administrative Tribunal. The respondent State filed a counter af.

D fidavit in response to the notice issued to it to show cause as to why the appellants should not be continued till the regularly selected candidates were appointed and took charge.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Since the regularly selected candidates have already been appointed and have taken charge, the limited relief for which notice was issued cannot be granted. [315-A; BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal Nos. 11818p 11820 of 1995.

From the judgment and order dated 13.7.93 of M.P. Administrative - Tribunal Bench Bhopal in T.A. No. 15/88 O.A. No. 575/88 and 0.A. No. 661/88.

G Ashok Kr. Singh for the Appellants.

Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agoihotri for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted. 314

BAHADURSINGHNARODA v. STATE 315

After .notice was issued confining to the question as to "why the petitioners may not be continued till the regularly selected candidates are appointed and taken charge", counter-affidavit has been filed by one c:L.

Khanna, Deputy D.S.E. in the office of the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Bhopal Division, Bhopal (M.P.). It is stated therein that the regularly selected candidates have already been appointed and taken charge, vide Annexure R. In that Annexure, the respective dates on which the selected candidates have taken charge have been given.

Under these circumstances, the limited relief for which notice was issued cannot be granted. The appeals are dismissed.

R.P.

Appeals dismissed.
SITA DEVI WD/O MUKAND LAL

A .. v.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

DECEMBER 7, 1995

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Ss.23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2), 2S-Acquisition of lanli-Compensation-Solatium-Award made by Collector on 26.11.1976 and by reference C court on 10.1.1985-Held, land owner entitled to benefits under the ss.23(2) and 28, but not to benefits under ss.23(1) and 23(1-A).

The appellant filed the appeal against the judgment of the High Court in the case arising out of the award of the Collector dated 26.11.1976 and the reference court dated 10.1.1985.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : The appellant is entitled under s.23(2) of the Land Acquisi tion Act, 1894 to solatium at 30 per cent on enhanced compensation, and interest at 9 per cent on enhanced compensation for one year from the date E of taking possession of the land and 15 per cent thereafter till the date of deposit into Court. But she not entitled to adjust interest and solatium from the principal amount of compensation determined under s.23(1) and deposited on the respective dates. She is neither entitled to interest on solatium nor to additional amount under s.23(1-A). [326-D-E; C-D] F Prem NaJh Kapoor & Ors. v. National Fertilizers Corporation Ltd. & Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 71, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11932 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.90 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2651 of 1989.

S.M. Ashri for the Appellant.

Mrs. Sheela Goel and AK. Goel for the Respondents. 325

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

The award of the Collector under Section 11 is of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dated November 26, 1976. The award of the reference B Court under Section 26 is dated January 10, 1985. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the payment of enhanced interest and solatium under Sections 28 and 23(2). The controversy raised in this matter is covered by the recent judgment of this Court delivered on November 29, 1995 [C.A. @ SLP 8494/87] in Prem Nath Kapoor & Ors. v. National Fertilizers Corporation Ltd. & Ors. c In other respects, the appellant is not entitled to adjust interest and solatium from the principal amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) and deposited on the respective dates. He is also not entitled to interest on solatium. Equally, the appellant is not entitled to additional D amount under Section 23(1-A) at 12 cent per annum from the date of notification till date of award or of taking over possession, whichever is earlier. The appellant is entitled under Section 23(2) to solatium at 30 per cent on enhanced compensation. Equally, the appellant is entitled to interest at 9 per cent on enhanced compensation for one year from the date of taking possession of the land and 15 per cent thereafter till date of E deposit into court.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PUNJAB A v.

ANUDEEP KAUR AND ORS.

DECEMBER 8, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSAR!A, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894 :

S.23( 1-A)-Acquisition of land-Compensatio1t-Award of Land Acquisition Officer passed on 30.7.1981--Held-Section has no application to C award-Civil court has no jurisdiction to award additional amount.

The State Government filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed its civil revision against the judgment of the civil court awarding additional amount under s.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Allowing the appeal, this Court D

HELD : The award of the Land Acquisition Officer being of July 30, 1981, s.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the award. The civil court has no jurisdiction to award the additional amount. E

[358-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11859-60 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. Nos. 3373-74 of 1991.

G.K. Bansal for the Appellaot;

Aniit Rawat, Rajesh K. Sharma and Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

• Leave graoted.

The controversy is no longer res-integra as regards entitlement to payment of additional amount under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisi- H 357

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A tion Act, 1894, as amended by act 68 of 1984. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated July 30, 1981. Therefore, Section 23(1-A) has no application to the award in question. Under these circumstances, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to amend the award and decree awarding additional amount under Section 23(1-A). The High Court equally com- B milted an error of law in dismissing the civil revision in that behalf.

The appeals are accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

R.P.

Appeals allowed.