evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
JAGE RAM AND ORS. ETC.

A v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 9, 1995 ..

(K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Land acquisition--Allotment of altemative sites-Depends upon purpose of acquisition-Acquisition for defence purpose-Displaced persons held C

not entitled to altemative sites.

Petitioners' lands were acquired for defence purpose viz •. establishment of Radar for which due compensation was paid to them •. It was contended on their behalf that since they have been displaced from their holdings, they need some site for construction of their houses.and that, .D , therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites.

Dismissing the petitions, this Court

HELD : Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the E request is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, the court is constrained not to accede to: the argument for alternative sites.· f SO•D]

State of U.P. v. Pista Devi, [1986) 4 SCC 251, distinguished.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 1511 F of 1987 Etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

R.P. Gupta for the Petitioners.

M.P. Shorawala for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Courtwas delivered :

The only question raised in these two writ petitions is whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the .effect that the petitioners H

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

A would be entitled to allotment of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been displaced from Uieir holdings, they

need some site for construction of their houses and that, therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites.

We are aware of the decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v.

Pista Devi, [1986) 4 SCC 251 at 260. But it depends upon the acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition related to planned development of housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to those displaced persons whose lands were acquired and who themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide alternative sites for their housing purpose. Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request is acceded to, it D would create innumerable complications, we are constrained not to accede to forceful pursuasive argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Petitions dismissed.
MIR SINGH AND ORS.

UNION OF INDIA

NOVEMBER 21, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Award of compensation-Unifonn rate detennined by High Court for C all lands-Held, no justification to grant higher rate in respect of some of the lands.

For certain lands acquired the compensation was ultimately determined by the High Court @ Rs. 12 per sq. ft. Dissatisfied the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

It was contended that the decision based on which the High Court determined the compensation @ Rs. 12 per sq. ft. related to 1959 notification and since in the present case the notification was of 1961, the appellants were entitled to higher compensation due to lapse of time.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The High Court has awarded the uniform rate to all the lands at Rs. 12,000 per bigha, i.e., Rs. 12 per sq. yd. There is no justification to distinguish the other cases from that of the appellants to grant enhanced compensation. [539-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order and Decree dated 23.7.84 of the Delhi G High Court in RF.A. No. 16 of 1978.

P.P. Juneja for the Appellants.

Ms. Shashi Kiran for B.K. Prasad for the Respondent.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :

MIR SINGH v. U.0.1. 539

In this case, notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition A acquiring a large extent of land of 966 bighas was published on October 24, 1961. Ultimately, the High Court granted @ Rs. 12 per sq. yd. i.e., Rs.

12,000 per bigha. The High Court followed the decision in Sanwalia & Ors.

v. Union of India. It is stated by Mr. P.P. Juneja, learned counsel for the appellants, that the notification of the lands covered in the Sanwalia' case is July 13, 1959. Since the notification of the appellants' land is of October 19, 1961, they are entitled to higher compensation due to lapse of time. We find it very difficult to accept the contention. The High Court has awarded the uniform rate to all the lands at Rs. 12,000 per bigha, i.e., Rs. 12 per sq.

yd. We do not find any much justification to distinguish the other cases from that of the appellants to grant enhanced compensation. The appeal C is, therefore, dismissed; No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismissed.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. v.

SHAMBHU NATH SINGLA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 22, 1995

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

Service Law:

Discharge from service-Criminal case pending-Reinstatement of C employee on discharge by criminal court-Period of suspension-Salary and other allowances-Entitlement to-Directions issued.

The State of Punjab has preferred the present appeals against the High Court's judgment directing reinstatement of the first respondent pending criminal prosecution.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : Admittedly the first respondent had been discharged by the Criminal Court for want of proper sanction, and he was reinstated in the service in January, 1988. Consequently, he is e.ntitled to full salary and E allowances for the period during which he was kept under suspension.

(583-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: _Civil Appeal No. 11459 of 1995 Etc.

From the Judgment and Ordr dated 8.8.91 of the Punjab & Haryana p. High Court in C.M. No. 429 (LPA). of 1991.

G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansl for the Appellants.

K.K. Mohan, Pradeep Gupta and Ratan Lal for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated August 8, 1991 of the Division Bench of the Punjab_& Haryana High Court directing H the reinstatement of the first respondent pending the criminal prosecution. 582 ,

STATE v. S.N. SINGLA 583

Since it is now admitted across the Bar that the first respondent had been A discharged by the Criminal Court for want of proper sanction, he was reinstated in the service in January, 1988. Consequently, he is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period during which he was kept under suspension.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal disposed of.
DURGA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. v.

SMT. GITA KUMAR AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 23, 1995

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

Compromise decree-Settlement in teJms of-Disposal of appeal.

In this appeal the parties have signed a memorandum of compromise wherein it has been clearly stated that the first respondent had C willingly agreed to transfer her interest in the land for a valuable consideration. Disposing the appeal, this Court.

HELD : Since the matter has been settled out of the Court, it is not necessary to go into the controversy. [623-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2738 of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.78 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 602 of 1974.

M.P. Jha for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

It was stated in the memorandum of compromise filed in this Court, that the first respondent had willingly agreed to transfer her right, title and interest in the land, as found by the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 602/74, in the order dated August 29, 1978, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 29,000 payable in lump sum as agreed between the parties. A copy of the receipt dated 30.3.1980 has already been placed on record signed by

the husband of the first respondent that the said amount was already G received by her. He stated therein that in his presence the amount was passed on to his wife. Under these circumstances, since the matter has been settled out of the Court, it is not necessary to go into the controversy. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above compromise. No costs.

H 623

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

A The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondents as they are not appearing in person or through counsel

T.NA.

Appeal disposed of.
BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION A v.

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Alticle 136.

Employee-Misappropriation of cash-Sanction for prosecution-Delay-Discharge-Held no interference called for.

The respondent was prosecuted for misappropriation of cash but was discharged on the ground that sanction for his prosecution was not obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Subsequently, sanction was obtained but the High Court interfered with

the matter on the ground that there was delay of 15 years in laying the D prosecution.

Dismissing the appeal by the employer, this Court

HELD : It is most unfortunate that the High Court has interfered in this matter, but having regard to the distance of time at the this Stage, E it is not appropriate to interfere with the matter which is at a stage of just starting of the trial. Having considered the totality of the fact of abnormal delay, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. (746-C-D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. F 1578 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.92 of the Patna High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 3575 of 1991 (R).

Udai Sinha, Ranjan Mukherjee and Gopal Singh for the Appellant. G

Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

H 745 -

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

A It is stated that the first respondent was posted as an Assistant Godown Manager in the Stores. Within a period of three months, he committed defalcation of mis-appropriation of Rs. 2,61,859 .30. The mis-appropriation of the said amount took place during the period of 1976 and earlier. A departmental enquiry commenced on December 12, 1979 and B initially the prosecution was laid in 1985 without obtaining the sanction.

The learned Magistrate discharged the respondent on the ground that the sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not obtained. In 1991, the sanction was obtained and thereafter the prosecution was laid. The High Court unfortunately has interfered with the matter exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that C there was a delay of 15 years in laying the prosecution. This was most unfortunate that the High Court would have interfered but having regard to the distance of time at this stage, it is not appropriate to interfere with the matter which is at a stage of even starting of the trial.

Having considered the totality of the fact of abnormal delay, it is not D a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal on this ground.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.
NAHAR SINGH

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Sections 4(1), 6 and 11-A (As inserted by Act 68 of 1984)

Land Acquisition-Amendment Act-Award not made within two years from the date of coming into force of-Held acquisition proceedings stood lapsed.

In this case no award was made within two years from the date of D coming into force of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : After the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was brought into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984, Section 11-A operates in the field. It envisages E that if the award under Section 11 has not been made within two years from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, all the proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 shall stand lapsed. In view of the fact that no steps appeared to have been taken within time, the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 no longer subsist. [755-C-D] F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.84 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W. No. 13984of1984.

R.K. Shukla, R.C.Verma, M.P.S. Tomar and P.K. Chakraborty for the Appellant.

K.S. Chauhan and AK. Srivastava for the Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 754

NAHAR SINGH v. STATE 755

Delay condoned. Substitution allowed.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was published on June 25, 1974. Declaration under Section 6 was published on July 3, 1974 dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A after the Governor had exercised his power under Section 17 ( 4) of the Act.

It is not clear from the record that the possession of the land was taken after 15 days from the date of service of the notice under Section 9 on the appellant. The appellant has asserted that he has been in possession of the land but no counter has been filed. In support thereof, the appellant has also placed on record the resolution dated December 27, 1977 of Gram Sabha stating that the other land has already been allotted to 30 eligible persons of the village and the land in question no longer is necessary. After the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was brought into force w.e.f. September

24, 1984, Section 11-A operates in the field. It envisages that if the award under Section 11 has not been made within two years from the date of D coming into force of the Amendment Act, all the proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 shall stand lapsed. In view of the fact that no steps appeared to have been taken within time, the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 no longer subsist.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Appeal-Matter remitted to High Court-Direction for disposal in accordance with law.

This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the decision C of Punjab and Haryana High Court. It involves the same question as arose in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1879 of 1993 decided by Supreme Court of India on 10.5.1994.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: In view of the order passed in Vinod Kumar's case this matter is remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. [837-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1158}- of 1995.

From . the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.92 of the Punjab & E Haryana High Court in RA.No. 164 of 1992.

Ajay Jain for G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F Leave granted.

This Court in C.A. No. 1879/93 and batch title The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mis. Vinod Kumar & Ors. by order dated May 10, 1994 allowed the appeals and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court. This Court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion G on merits. The High Court was free to dispose of the matters in accordance with law. The same question arises in this case. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in the light of the above order. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed, H
SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANR. v.

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 : Sections 68C, 68D.

Approved scheme-Omission to specify number of se1vices-Held does not invalidate the scheme.

The question in these appeals is whether omission to specify number of services would invalidate the scheme already approved under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : The omission to specify the number of services in the

--r approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved. [16-B]

---~.

Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., [1980] 1 SCR 498, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3487 of 1979 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.79 of the Allahabad High Court irt C. Misc. W.P. No. 1567 of 1978.

Appellants-in-person (NIP).

K.S. C_hauhan and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Though the case has been called twice, the appellants are not present in person. We have taken the assistance of Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., [1980] 1 SCR 498 where this H 15

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

A Court had held that "failure to specify number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under Section 68C or the approved scheme trnder Section 680 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". Same is the question in these appeals also. Under these circumstances, the omission to specify the number of services in the approved scheme does not invalidate the

B scheme already approved.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals dismissed.
SANJAY INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING COMPANY A v. ti-IE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DECEMBER 6, 1995

[K, RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] B

CoiistiiUtit>n of India :

Article i.36-Contwtelit finding of facf-11.ecorded by civil court and High Court-Not inteifeted Witit, New plea raised in appeal--Not entertained. C

Dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-company against the State Government, this Court

HELD : 1. The civil court and the High Court have held that the letter dated 5.7.1979 did not form an integral part of the agreement dated D 17.7.1979. This being a finding of fact, there is no error law warranting interference. [287-H, 288-A]

2. The plea that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct in declin ing to grant the amount claimed cannot be entertained as the same was not raised before the High Court. [288-B) E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11912 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.93 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 195 of 1990.

A.K. Srivastava and R.K. Sharma for the Appellants.

B.B. Singh for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G

Leave granted.

Heard the counsel on both sides. Since the Civil Court and the High Court have gone into the question whether the letter dated July 5, 1979 is part of the agreement dated July 17, 1979 and have held that the letter did H 287

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

A not form an integral part of the agreement, the agreement does not contain any obligation to pay at the rate of Rs. 432 per Hume pipe to the appellant.

This being a finding of fact, we do not find any error of law warranting interference.

It is next contended that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct B in declining to grant the amount claimed. We do not find any substance in the contention. Moreover, the contention was not argued in the High Court. Therefore, we cannot allow the counsel to address this contention here in this appeal.

c The appeal is dismissed. No. costs.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.
D.D.A. v.

BHAVANA COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

AUGUST 24, 1995

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

Delhi Development Auth01ity-F01feiture of deposit-Upheld to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs-R.efwid of balance amount to Housing Socie't}'--Directions f or--lssued.

Allowing the appeal against the High Court's , judgment, this Court

HELD : Forfeiture to the extent of Rupees five lakhs is upheld.

The appellant authority shall refund the remaining amount to the respondent. [56-H; 57-A]

D.DA. v. Glihsthapana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., JT

(1995) 2 S.C. 530, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7932 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.94 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 4530 of 1993.

V.B. Saharaya for the Appellant.

Ms. Sangecla Kalra anJ SuJhir Kalra (Jn-person) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Ms. Sangeeta Kalra and Mr. Sudhir Kalra appeared on behalf of the Society. In view of the judgment of this Court in D.DA. v. Glihsthapana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., JT (1995) 2 SC 530, the appeal is allowed and forfeiture to the extent of rupees five lakhs is upheld. The H remaining amount would be refunded by the appellant within a period of 56

D.D.A. v. BHA V ANA CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY 57

four weeks from today, failing which the respondent would be entitled for A interest @ 18% per annum from that date till payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF KERALA

MALAYALAM PLANTATION LTD.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY

AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1963 : Section 19.

C Land Acquisition-Extraction of granite-Compensation f or-.:.-Assessment by Commissi01w-Acceptance by Court-Held valid.

In these land acquisition proceedings initiated for extracting the granite in the area under acquisition, a commissioner was appointed who reported on the quantum ofgranite available, extent of the land and the D value thereof. The High Court and the Reference Court appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that compensation for granite, as assessed by the Commissioner, would be as determined by it.

Dismissing the State's appeal, this Court

E HELD : There is no error of law in assessing the evidence so as to warrant interference. [537-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 210 of 1982.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.80 of the Kerala High Court in L.A.A. No. 17 of 1977.

A.S. Nambiar, and M.T. George, for the Appellant.

Mrs. Meera Mathur for the JBD & Co. for the Respondent.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Notification acquiring 8.83 hectares of land for the purpose of constructing the dam was published on January 30, 1971 under Section 19 of the Kerala Land Acquisition act, 1963. The purpose of acquisition was to H extract the granite lying in the area under acquisition. The Land acquisition 572

STATE v. MALAYALAM PLANTATION LTD. 573

Officer awarded separately for granite, apart from the land where no A granite is available. On a reference made to the Civil Court, a Commi..<;- sioner came to be appointed, who on personal inspection noted that 7,12,500 cubic Meters granite was available in 15.77 acres of land. He assessed the rate at Rs. 1,02,493. The Reference Court accepting the report relating to the quantum of granite available, extent of the land and the value thereof, determined the land value at a sum of Rs. 17,717.59 as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, and awarded an additional compensation in a sum of Rs. 98,011.07 for the granite as well as value of the trees standing on the land. The respondent filed cross-objections and the High Court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 1,78,125.

The High Court and the Reference Court had appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the compensation for the granite, as assessed by the Commissioner, would be as determined by it. We do not think that there is any error of law in assessing the evidence warranting interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.