evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
f i

SURBUDDIN AND ANR.

A ... ..,.. v.

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

JANUARY 23, 1995

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

J -

Land Refonns Act-Joint claim statement by husband and wife-Only husband granted compensation-Joint claim for respective holdin15Wife too has to be granted compensation.

Land of husband and wife was taken over under the Land Reforms c

Act. They jointly filed their claim statement. Only husband was awarded compensation. Wife appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that no separate claim had been made by the wife.

~ ....

Allowing the appeal, this Court D

HELD : Wife and husband jointly laid the claim. They both made the claim in respect of their respective holdings. State shall compute and grant the compensation payable to the wife in respect of the land held by her. [534-C] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 1995.

-t From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.84 of the Kerala High Court in L.A.A. No. 266 of 1970.

F E.M.S. Anam for the Appellants.

M.T. George for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

~,.

Notice itself was issued to the husband and the wife for making their claim for lands respectively held by them which was taken over under the Land Reforms Act. They also filed jointly their claim statement as indicated in the statement filed in this Court. In that view of the matter, the H 533

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1995) 1 S.C .. R.

A Tribunal should have granted to both the claimants the compensation for the lands respectively held by the husband as well as the wife. Since the wife was not separately awarded while granting the compensation to the husband, when the appeal was filed, the High Court of Kerala in the impugned order dated July 6, 1984 in LAA No. 266/78 dismissing the B appeal on the ground that there was no separate claim made by the wife.

The High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the claim was not made by the wife. She and her husband jointly laid the claim and so it would be that they both made the claim in respect of their respective holdings. In that situation, the State should have granted compensation to the lands respectively held by them. c

The,. appeal is accordingly allowed. The competent authority is directed to compute the compensation payable to the wife in respect of the land held by her. No costs.

A.G.

Appeal allowed.
..._, ----

~ ' , T

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. v

RAKESH MENON AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

FEBRUARY 1, 1995

(AM. AHMADI, CJ, N.P. SINGH AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.)

Education-Admission to professional caurses-Medical and Dental Colleges-State Government entitled to reduce the minimum qualifying marks in General English in order to make seats avaflable to SC/ST candidates.

A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of a group of Writ Petitions concluding that it was not open to the State government to reduce the minimum qualifying marks in General English in order to make seats available for SC/ST candidates by virtue of the relaxation .

Different appeals which bad challenged the order had been allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The order of High Court is set aside in terms of another Supreme Court order covering the same subject. [746-D]

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 623-624 of1994 and State of M.P. andAnr. v. Chitresh Kasliwal and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 625 of 1994, applied.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1256 of F 1995 Etc. Etc. ---

From the Judgment and Oder dated 21.8.93 f the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 1(~5 of 1992.

S.K. Agnihotri for t~ Appellants.

Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted. 745

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1995] 1 S.C.R.

A A group of Writ Petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21.8.1993, which related to admission to the Medical and Dental Colleges in the said State. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that it was not open to the State Government to reduce the minimum qualifying marks in general English in order to make B seats available to SC/ST candidates by virtue of the said relaxation.

Some Special Leave Petitions filed against the same judgment in the connected writ petitions, (Civil Appeal Nos. 623-624of1994, Rajesh Kumar Venna v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 625 of 1994, State of M.P. & Anr. v. Chitresh Kasliwal & Anr., were disposed of by this C Court on 21.1. 1994. This Court allowed the aforesaid Civil Appeals and set aside the impugned order dated 21.8.1993 of the Division Bench of the High Court.

These CivilAppeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, against similar orders passed by the Division Bench in different D Writ Petitions filed on behalf of the respondents. All the appeals are

--disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 21.1.1994 of this Court. The appeals filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh are allowed and the orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There will be no order for costs.

A.G.

Appeal Allowed.
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

A ·-j v.

SMT. A. ONGBI MEMCHA DEVI AND ANR.

APRIL 17, 1995

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

Service Law :

Appointment on compassionate grounds-Employee dying in harness-i!is widow appointed on compassionate grounds-After several years c Writ petition filed by her for direction to appoint the brother-in-law (brother of the deceased}-High Court allowing the Writ petition-Validity of-Held-Widow already appointed and continuing in service-Brother not . a dependent-Not entitled to further employment on compassionate grounds.

, The first respondent was appointed on 1.1.1974 in the service of the D

i appellant State on compassionate grounds as her husband died in bar ness. She continues In service and even got promoted to the next higher post. In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court to appoint her brother-in-law (brother or the deceased) on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was allowed. The review petition filed by the State against the order was dismissed. Hence these appeals.

Allowing the appeals and setting aside the High Court's orders, this court

HELD : Brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who F died in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already been appointed and she bas been continuing in service they cannot claim further employment on the basis or the death of the employee in harness.

[368-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5710 of G 1995 Etc.

~ J From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.94 of. the Gauhati High Court in C.R.No. 97 of 1991.

V.C. Mahajan and S. Janani for the Appellants.

H 367

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1995] 3 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Co1Jrt was delivered:

Leave granted.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated 22.2.1994 passed in Civil Review Application No. 17 of 1993 in B C.R.No. 97of1991 and CR 97/91 of the High Court of Gauhati at its Bench at Imphal. One, A. Raghumani Singh, was appointed in the service of Manipur State and he died in harness. Therefore, his widow Smt. Arambam Ongbi Memcha Devi, was appointed as L.D.C. on 1.1.1974 on compassionate grounds and she was promoted as U.D.C. on October 13, 1981.

In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to appoint C her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 97 of 1991, against which a Review Petition was filed. As stated earlier, the Review Petition was also dismissed. Thus, these two appeals by special leave. Though time was taken for ftling counter by the respondent, no counter has been filed.

The brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already been appointed and she has been continuing in serviced they cannot claim further employment on the basis of the death of the employee in harness.

The High Court was, therefore, not correct.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances no costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.
BAWA NIHAL SINGH

THE STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION

COLLECTOR, FARIDKOT.

NOVEMBER 1, 1995

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

Practice & Procedure :

Non-compliance of Court's notice-Non-payment of deficit process fee and non-filing of applications-Time granted to comply with and in default ordered that the application shall be dismissed-By self-operation of order, applications stand dismissed-Consequently appeal dismissed as having abated as a whole.

In this appeal despite several letters, deficit process fee was not paid and applications were not filed. When the matter was listed again, it was reported that one of the appellants died and his legal representatives were to be brought on record; and that the deficit process was not deposited and applications were not filed. One more notice was issued but there was no compliance. Once again the matter was listed on 2.1.95 and this Court granted four weeks time for complying with the office objections and ordered that in default the Civil Miscellaneous Petition would stand dismissed.

Disposing of the matter, this Court

F HELD: In view of this Court's order dated 2.1.95 the applications by

self-operation of the said order stand dismissed. Consequently the appeal also requires to be dismissed as having abated as a whole. (691-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8392 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975. 11.9.79 of the Punjab & •

Mrs. Kamaljcet Kochhar for J.D. Jain for the Appellant.

H Ranbir Yadav for G.K. Bansal for the Respondent.

B.N. SINGH v. STATE 691

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

It is very unfortunate that the matter is not being prosecuted diligently. It is seen from the office report dated October 25, 1994 that after issue of notice by this Court on 3.5.1993, letters were issued to the counsel for the appellant on 15.5.1993, 13.6.1994, 15.7.1994 and 6.8. l994 with a default clause to pay the requisite deficit process fee and also to file copies of the applications. However, no action was taken. Again when the matter was listed on 3.5.1993, it was reported that one of the appellants died and his legal representatives were directed to be brought on record, notice to be taken and process fee along with miscellaneous petition was required to be deposited. The Registry of this Court has given notice to the counsel for payment of the requisite process fee along with the copies of petitions but that was also not done. When the matter was again posted before the Court

on 2.1.1995 for further orders, this Court ordered : "Four weeks for complying with the office objections. In' default, the Civil Misc. Petition Nu,. 4315-17/87 shall stand dismissed". Therefore, the applications by selfopc:ation of the said order stand dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal also requires to be dismissed as having abated as a whole. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismissed.
PAPANNA AND ANR. ETC.

STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ORS. ETC.

NOVEMBER l, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Order 22 Rules 3 & 4-Legal Representatives of one of the many C parties-Not brought on record-Appeal abates against all since the decree is

conimon and indivisible.

Practice & Procedure :

Advocate on record-Designated as Senior Advocatrofessional D duty of counsel to intimate his clients for making alternative aTTangements.

I!! these appeals, notices were issued to the appellants to make alternative arrangements in place of their counsel being designated as Senior Advocate, despite the fact that it was no part of the duty of this Court and it is the professional duty of the counsel concerned. But there E was no compliance.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Ac11uisition Act being F common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date. [693-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6258-59 of 1983 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982.

P.R. Ramascsh for the Respondent No. 5.

K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents Nos. 1-4. 692

PAPANNAv. STATE 693

The following Order of the Court was delivered : A

After Mr. KN. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry had issued noticed to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except appellant No. 2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered appearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter B of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on/record.

It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has aheady been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the C validity of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N Appeals dismissed.
SRI MANOHAR A v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

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

Service Law :

Tribunal dismissing the case on ground of lache;~E.xplanation given for !aches not controve1ted by the other employer-Matter remitted back to C T1ibunal to examine and dispose of the case on moits.

This appeal is against the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal'> order dismissing the appellant's case on the ground of !aches.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : In view of the fact that the respondents have not controverted the explanation given for the !aches, there is some justification

for the appellant to tile the proceedings at belated stage. However, the relief cannot be granted since on counter-affidavit has been filed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to examine the case on merits and E dispose of the matter according to law. (726-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10213 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.93 of the Karnataka Ad- F ministrative Tribunal in Application No. 611 of 1993.

R. S. Hagde for P.P. Singh for the Appellant.

Ms. Manjula Kulkarni for M. Veerappa for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

In spite of an opportunity having been given to the respondents to file counter-affidavit by our order dated October 11, 1993, till date no H 725

72fJ

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

A counter-affidavit has been filed. The Tribunal had dismissed the case on the ground of !aches. In view of the fact that the respondents have not controverted the explanation given for the !aches, we find that there is some justification for the appellant to file the proceedings at belated stage.

However, the relief cannot be granted here since no counter-affidavit has

B been filed. In the circumstances, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to examine the case on merits and dispose of the matter according to law.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal disposed of.

. "-
PUNJAB STATE AND ANR.

A v.

DARSHAN KUMAR

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

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

Seivice Law :

Increments-Withholding of-Suit filed on the ground that orders were not communicated--Suit decreed by T1ial Court and upheld by Appellate C Court-Suit-Whether ban-ed by limitatiort-Held : Plea of non-communication not taken-F., xcept two orders, all other orders passed before three years of filing of the suit-Hence ban-ed by /imitatiort-Limitation Act, 1963.

The Respondent filed a suit challenging the orders passed by the competent authority, withholding his increments. The Civil Court held that D since the procedure contemplated nuder the relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit was not barred by limitation.

The Appellate Court had only stated that no order was communicated.

Hence this appeal by the State Government.

Allowing the appeal, this Conrt

HELD : 1. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25, 1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are clearly barred by limitation. [728-E]

2. The decree of the Trial Court . is modified to the extent that withholding oft.he increments by orders dated October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation. [728-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10269 of 1995

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.93 of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 483 of 1993.

H 727

SUPREME.COURTREPQRTS [1995) SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A Sanjay Bansal for G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.

R.K. Mahajan and B.Y. Kulkarni for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B Leave granted

In this case, the respondent had filed the suit questioning the orders dated 19.5.76, 28.12.77, 13.10.78, 2.7.79, 18.5.84, 29.5.86, 8.10.87 and 3.11.88 passed by the competent authority, withholding the increments. The Civil Court considered the question of limitation and held that since the proce- C dure contemplated under the relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit is not barred by limitation. The Appellate Court has only stated that "no order was communicated".

We have gone through the allegation stated in the plaint and written D statement as extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25,

1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are . clearly barred by limitation.

E Under these circumstances, the decree of the Trial Court is modified to the extent that withholding of the increments by orders dated October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation.

F The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
INDER SINGH AND ORS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

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

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Propc1ty Act, 1952/Rules.

S.B(b )/Rule 9(5)(i)-Landowners agreeing to receive compensation awarded-Executing 'K' form and accepting compensation without protest-Later 011 seeking appointment of Arbitrator-Held : Not entitled to.

The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award and the appellants had agreed to receive the compensation, executed 'K' form as per Rule 9(5) (i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules

and accepted the compensation without protest. Thereafter they D preferred a writ petition before the High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator under S.(8)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Act. The writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the ap, peal, this Court

HELD: The appellants having received the compensation under Form 'K' without protest, Rule 9(5)(i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules would apply to them and they are not entitled under Section 8(b) of the Act appointment of an arbitrator. [738-D J

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10271 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.89 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 6274 of 1988.

Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur for the Appellants.

N.N. Goswami, Ms. Anil Katiyar and Wasim Qadri for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 737

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

A Leave granted.

The appellant had sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(h) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,

1952. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on two grounds, namely, on delay as well as on merits. Thus this appeal by special leave.

The Land Acquisitior• Collector, the competent authority, had passed the award determining compensation at varied rates, namely, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 2001 in respect of three different belts of land.

Thereupon, 22 persons including the appellants herein had agreed to receive the compensation and executed 'K' Form. Agreement as per Rule 9(5)(i) of the Rules made under the Act and accepted and compensation without protest. Section 8(b) of the Act requires appointment of arbitrator when there is no agreement between the parties reached on the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

In view of the above circumstances, the appellants having received the compensation under Form 'K' without protest, Rule 9 (5) (i) would apply to them and they arc not entitled under Section 8(b) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismissed.