evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
( ~

UNION OF INDIA v.

)/., ......

B.V. SAROJA AND ANR.

JANUARY 13, 1995

~ B

[K. RAMASWAMY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Amendment Act 68184-Section 23(1-A) -No entitlement to payment of additional amount.

Practice and Procedure-Review allowed in view of the Constitution Bench judgment.

After publication of the award in 1976, upon notification u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act the respondents sought payment of additional amount upder Section 23(1-A) of the Amendment Act 68/84.

D Allowing the appeal, this Court -< -

HELD : The respondents are not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of Land Ac

E quisition Act as amended by Amendment Act 68/84 in view of the Constitu tion Bench judgment. [251 C)

KS. Paripooran v. State of Kerala, [1994) 5 SCC 593, applied.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 41 of F 1993. y •

Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1995.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.89 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 2814 of 1985.

AS. Nambiar, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Sushma Suri and Ms. Anil ~

Katiyar for the Petitioner/Appellant.

H P. Mahale for the Respondents.

U.0.1. v. B.V. SAROJA 251

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The notification under Sectioin 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on March 30, 1972. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on September 15, 1976 and the possession was taken on October 15, 1976. The point raised now is covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in KS. Palipooman v. State of Kera/a, reported in (1994] 5 SCC 593. In view of these facts, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Amendment Act 68/84. As a consequence, the claimants are not entitled to the above benefit. The Review Petition is ordered.

Leave granted in S.L.P. The appeal is allowed only to the above extent. The award of the Courts below are accordingly modified. No costs.

A.G.

Appeal allowed.
:..J

JAYASHREE A v

M. SRINIVASA MURTHY

AUGUST 14, 1995

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

Family Law:

Trans/ er petition by wife seeking trans/ er of divorce petition-On Cowt's pursuation the couple settled their differences and wife agreed to join her C husband within two years-Held, two years will be outer limit for sorting the problems-Meanwhile also couple can live together.

In the transfer petition filed before this Court by the wife seeking transfer of the divorce petition, pursuant the directions of this Court, the couple settled their differences and the wife agreed to join her husband D within two years after sorting out her property problems in the other city.

Disposing of the transfer petition, this Court

HELD : The period of two years will be an outer limit for sorting out the problems. Meanwhile also the couple can live together, in particular, E during the school vacations of the children. The Divorce Petition stands dismissed. [698-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (C) No. 270of1994.

Under Article 139A(l) of the Constitution of India/Under Section 25 Civil Procedure Code.

S.K. Kulkarni and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Petitioners.

Ms. J.S. Wad and Ms. Usha Reddy for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

We are happy to note that pursuant to the directions of this Court, petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband have settled their differences

and agreed to live together. They have stated in a written memo filed in H 697

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A this Court that they have sorted out their problems and agreed to live together at Hyderabad. It is also agreed that the wife would join her husband within two years from August 4, 1995, or. as early as may be after sorting out her property problems at Bangalore.

B It is stated that appropriate direction may also be given by this Court.

We say that the period of two years will be an outer limit for sorting the problems and for living at Hyderabad. In the meanwhile also, they can live together, in particular, during the school vacations of the children.

The Transfer Petition is accordingly disposed of. The Divorce Petition stands dismissed.

R.P.

Petition disposed of.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

SHARANABASAPPA SHIVAYOGAPPA TY AP AL AND ORS.

AUGUST 16, 1995

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

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

Ss.23 (1-A), 23(2), 28-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Awards C made by Land Acquisition Officer on 12.10.1978 and by reference Cowt on 31.3.198()-Held: claimants not entitled to benefits available under Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

The State Government filed the appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court in certain cases arising out of the award made D by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.10.1978 and the order of the reference court made on 31.3.1980.

Allowing the appeals and modifying the order of the High Court, this Court

HELD : The claimants are not entitled to the enhanced benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. They are, however, entitled to 15 percent solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest @ 5 per cent annum under the local amended Act on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (761-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7594-99 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Karnataka High Court in M.S.A. Nos. 75-80 & 74 of 1987.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 761

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

Leave granted.

The Land Acquisition Officer's award in dated the 12th October, 1978 and the Reference Court award is of 31st March, 1980. Under these circumstances, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The award of the High Court is modified and the grant of benefits are set aside. However, the claimants are entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest @ 5 per cent per annum under the local amended Act on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

The appeals are accordingly allowed to the above extent.

R.P.

Appeals allowed.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

N.S. TAKKALAKI AND ORS.

AUGUST 16, 1995

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

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

C Ss.4( 1 ), 23( 1-A)-Acquisition of land--Compensation-Notification under s.4(1) published on 23.1.1980-Award by Land Acquisition Officer made on 28.3.1980-Held: Claimants not entitled to benefits under s.23(1-

A).

The State Government filed the appeal by special leave against the D judgment of the High Court in a case arising out of the award dated

28.3.1980 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands acquired under the notification dated 23.1.80 published under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

E Allowing the appeal, and modifying the order of the High Court and the award of the reference Court, this Court.

HELD : The respondent-claimants are not entitled to the additional amount @ 12 per cent annum of the enhanced compensation under s.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended Amendment Act F 68of1984. [781-AJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.86 of the Karnataka High G Court in M.F.A. No. 1805 of 1985.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted.

. c

SPL. LAND ACQSN. OFFICER v. N.S. TAKKALAKI 781

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 A (for short, 'the Act') was published on January 23, and the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on March 28, 1980. Consequently, the respondents are not entitled to the additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum of the enhanced compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the grant of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is set aside. In other respects, the award of the Reference Court, as confirmed by the High Court, stands confirmed. No costs.

R.P .

Appeal allowed.
'r A

STATE OF U, P. AND ORS.

RAM KHELAWAN AND ORS.

AUGUST 17, 1995

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

Constitution of India :

"';"

Article 226-Writ Petition before the High Court-High Court granting c relief by way of interim direction-Held, High Court prejudged the issue-Since issue is pending adjudication, High Court not justified in giving the directions.

The State Government filed the appeal by special leave against the interim order granted by the High Court.

D Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, ~~ this Court

HELD : The High Court prejudged the issue by directing to pay as if the respondents are regular employees. Since the issue is pending adjudica- E tion, the High Court is not justified in giving such direction. (822-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7873 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.93 of the Allahabad High F Court in W.P. No. Nil of 1993.

R.B. Misra for the Appellant.

Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the Respondent.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

~ Heard the counsel on both sides. The High Court pre-judged the issue by directing to pay as if the respondent is a regular employee. Since H this issue is pending adjudication, the High Court is not justified in giving 822

STATE v. RAMKHELAWAN 823

such direction.

Accordingly, the direction is set aside. Since the matter is pending in the High Court, we request it to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months, giving preference to the writ petition. B

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

R.P .

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF U.P.

RAVINDER NATH'CHATURVEDI AND ANR.

AUGUST 28, 1995

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

Se1vice Law

Dismissal order-Setting aside of by High Court-State's appeaf- C Direction by Supreme Cowt.

The High Court set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to them during the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer.

Allowing the State's appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court

HELD : No one was examined to prove the case of the State. It is desirable that an officer who is acquainted with the records may be examined to prove the documentary evidence and opportunity may be given to the respondents to cross-examine the witness or produce any evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted within four months from the date of this order, the report will be given and copy thereof will be supplied to the respondents. The State Government is further directed to consider the inquiry report and take appropriate decision within three months of submission of Report. [109-B-C; D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7848 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.94 of the Allahabad, High G Court in W.P. No. 7918 of 1986.

D.V. Sehgal and R.B. Misra for the Appellant.

AB. Mathur, M.R. Vij and Shrish Kr. Misra for the Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :

STATE v. R.N. CHATURVEDI 109

Leave granted. Heard lerned counsel for the parties.

The High Court has set aside the imposition of the penalty on the respondents on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents during the inquiry by the Inquiry officer. It is also found that no one was examined to prove the case of the State. It would be desirable that an officer who is acquainted with the records may also be examined B to prove the documentary evidence and opportunity may be given to the respondents to cross-examine the witness or produce any evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted, the report will be given and copy thereof will be supplied to the respondents.

The order of the High Court in accordingly set aside. The Inquiry Officer, if he is still in service is directed to conduct and complete the inquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Order. If he is not in service, the State is directed to appoint another Inquiry Officer afresh who would do the needful within the said period.

In case of fresh appointment of Inquiry Officer, the State Government is directed to appoint an Inquiry Officer within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. After submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer, the State Government is further directed to consider the inquiry report and take appropriate decision within three months thereafter.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF U.P.

RAT AN LAL ETC.

AUGUST 28, 1995

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition-Compensation-Directions regarding.

Disposing the appeal against the High Court's order, this Court C

HELD : The appellant-State shall deposit 50% of the amount awarded by Reference Court failing which the stay shall be vacated. The respondents can withdraw half the amount without security and the balance against security. This will be subject to the result of appeals pending in the High Court. [113-H; 114-A) D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7974 of 1995 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.94 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 85 of 1992.

AB. Rohtagi, Nalin Tripathi and R.B. Misra for the Appellant.

Ranbir Yadav for the Respondent in C.A. No. 7975/95.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Though the respondents have been served, they did not appear in appeals arising out of SLPs 3672/95 and 3753/95 either in person or through

G counsel. Mr. Ranbir Yadav is appearing for respondent, Banwari Lal in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 3750/95. We have heard the counsel on both sides .. On the facts and circumstances, we think that the interests of justice will be served and we so direct the appellant to deposit 50';!{ of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of two months from today. On the deposit so made, respondents will be at liberty to H 113

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUf P. 3 S.C.R.

A withdraw half the amount without security and the balance half on furnishing the security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. The deposits and withdrawal will be subject to the result in the appeals now pending in the High Court. In default of the deposit as stated above, the stay shall stand vacated. No Costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
...

JA WALA RAM AND ANR.

A v.

STATE OF H.P.

AUGUST 28, 1995

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

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 : Section 4.

Probation-Benefit of-Failure to file underlaking for-Dismissal of appeal-Filing of explanation and unde1taking before Supreme Cowt-Accep- C tance and Directions.

The appellants were held entitled to benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the High Court but their appeal was dismissed for not filing the undertaking of good conduct. They filed their explanation as well as the undertaking before this Court.

Accepting the same, this Court

HELD : The appellant shall remain on probation for a period of one year from the date of this order. If they keep good conduct and behaviour during this period, they shall be deemed to have served the sentence. In E case they do not, the authorities would be free to take them into custody to serve the sentence imposed on them. (116-D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Nos. 1000-1001 of 1995.

Criminal Appeal

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.95 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 329 of 1989.

Krishan Mahajan, R.N. Karanjawala and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala,

for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

As directed by the Court, the Registry issued notice to the standing counsel for the state of Himachal Pradesh, but no appearance has been entered so far. Nobody has appeared also.

H 115

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Leave Granted.

The appellants have been convicted under ss.451, 426 read with s.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two m0nths imprisonment. The High Court postponed the sentence under s.4 of Probation of Offender's Act subject to filing an undertaking of good conduct. Since the B appellants had not executed the under taking, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

In view of the finding of the High Court that the appellants are entitled to Probation of Offender's Act and were directed to execute a bond, and in view of the explanation given by the appellants in the form of an affidavit filed. in this Court, we accept the explanation of non-receipt of the advocate's letter. They have also filed an affidavit in this Court giving an undertaking that they would keep good conduct for a period of one year. We accept the undertaking and state that they shall remain on probation for a period of one year from today. If they keep good conduct D and behaviour during this period, they shall be deemed to have served the sentence. In case they do not, the authorities would be free to take them into custody to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
........ ...

CHANDRASHEKHAR GATANAN BHOGAONKAR v.

YESHWANT DHONDI POTDAR AND ORS .

AUGUST 28, 1995

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

Co11stitution of India, 1950: Article 136.

Appeal-Possession of land-Grant of intelim inju11ctiort-Findings of Courts below-l11terfere11ce with by Supreme Cowt-Held 11ot called for.

On the question whether the appellant was in possession of the disputed land and whether ad interim injunction should be granted, the Trial Court gave its findings in favour of the appellant but the first appellate court held that he was not in possession of the land. The High Court declined to interfere.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case and the findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect on the respective interests of the parties. (118-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8032 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.95 of the Bombay High

Court in W.P. No. 3965 of 1994.

AS. Bhasme for the Appellant.

S.B. Upadhyaya for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G

Leave granted.

Notice was issued with a view to impress upon the parties to settle the dispute amicably and learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that he is not informed about the settlement and, therefore, he H 117

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A is unable to impress upon them to enter into any compromise.

Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contended on merits that the trial Court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. We do not want to go into the controversy as to who is in possession of the land. It is true that the trial court on p1i.• na B f acie evidence found that the appellant was in possession o1 the land. It was further found that irreparable injury would be caused to him if ad interim injunction is granted. On appeal, the District Judge re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. High Court did not interfere on being approached C under Article 227.

At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case and the findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect on the respective interests of the parties. The issue was of prim a f acie case and of balance of convenience to grant or to refuse ad interim injunction.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.

. ·.

.....

. '
SH. MEHNGA SINGH, EX-SUB INSPECTOR

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PAP,

JALANDHAR CANTT. AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1995

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

Se1vice Law:

C Police Inspector-Loss of revolver and live cartridges-Dismissal-Plausible explanation offered-Modification of piinishment-Compulsory retirement-Direction for retiral benefits.

The appellant, an Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service for his failure to deposit service revolver and six live cartridges. His explana- D tion was that he had to share a room with two other colleagues as a consequence of which the revolver and six cartridges were lost and unaccounted for. Therefore, exclusive liability may not be appropriate.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

E HELD : In view of the previous unblemish record of service and the

plausible explanation offered by the appellant, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is not warranted. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to modify the punishment of dismissal as one of compulsory retirement so that tlte appellant would be entitled to retiral benefits. The terminal benefits must be computed and paid within six months from the date of receipt of' this order. [245-C-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTiON : Civil Appeal No. 8082 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.90 of the Punjab & G Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14302 of 1990.

l.K. Mehta, Mrs. S. Bagga and Ms. Tanuj Bagga, for the Appellant.

Sanjay Bansal for G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 244

MEHNGASINGH v. INSP. GEN. OF POLICE 245

Notice was issued on March 15, 1991 confined to the question of A punishment.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

The appellant had unblemish record of service all hrough till 1989.

Pursuant to the promotion given to him as Inspector, he was to deposit the B service revolver and six live cartridges. It is his case that he had to share a room with two other colleagues as a consequence of which the revolver and six cartridges were lost and unaccounted for. Therefore, exclusive liability may not be appropriate.

There is an element of possibility in the contention. In view of the C previous unblemish record of service and the plausible explanation offered by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service may not be warranted. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to modify the punishment of dismissal as one of compulsory retirement so that the appellant would be entitled to retiral benefits.

The appeal is according allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate orders as directed above. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to all the terminal benefits which must be computed and paid within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

His pension is also directed to be released within the above period. No E costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.