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

VIRUPAX SHANKAR NADAGOUDA

'""'I,

AUGUST 21, 1996 ')

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 23( 1 ). Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principles for detennination of-Reference Court applied multic< plier of 15 years in computing the annual yield-Compensation granted for

~ .,.. acquisition of land-Separate compensation also awarded for well-Appeal c prefe11"ed by State-Held the Reference Cowt eJTed in granting compensation for the well-Setting aside of the same 10 years multiplier should be applied to the annual value of the yield for calculation of compensation under Section 23( 1) of the Act-Reference Cowtdirected to recalculate the compensation.

1 D ' Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc., [1984] 2 SCR 386, referred to. ' ; ___,._

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 703-704 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.83 of the Karnataka High E

Court in M.F.A. Nos. 1385--86 of 1979)

M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,500 . per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the land Girayat dry) at Rs. 960 per acre. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per acre for bagayat lands in which sugar cane was grown and

.... for the rest of the land he granted at Rs. 4000 per acre. The High Court G -

of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated September 9, 1988 confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by special leave.

Two contentions have been raised by Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the appellant. The Reference Court had wrongly applied multiplier of 15 years in computing the annual yield. This Court in Land Acquisition H 25

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc., (1984] 2 SCR 386 followed in other judgments, had held that 10 years' multiplier would b_e the proper method of calculation of the compensation.

Accordingly 10 years' multiplier should be applied in determing compensation under Section 23 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. He B also contended that separate compensation granted the well in the sum Rs. 13,000 is not valid in law. When the owner of the land is getting the water drawn from the well to raise the crops and when he claims compensation for the land on the basis of the yield, he cannot separately claim compensation for the well. Therefore, the reference Court obviously was in error C in granting compensation for the well at Rs. 13,000. It is accordingly set aside. 10 years' multiplier should be applied to the annual value of the yield for calculation of compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. The

referenc1~ Court accordingly is directed to recalculate the compensation under these principles and determine the compensation and pay over the same to the respondents. If the amount has already been recovered, it D would be open to the appellant to recover the balance amount.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals allowed.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT

GOPALBHAI BECHARBHAI ETC.

AUGUST 21, 1996

[K. RAMASWA\1Y AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 11, 12(2), 18(2) and 31.

Land acquisition-Award-Application for referenc~Time limitation C forfiling-Award passed on June 26, 1981-Notice under Section 12(2) issued

on September 18, 1981-Application seeking reference under Section 18 filed

011 July 30, 1985 i.e. after lapse of 3 years from the date of receipt of

11otic~Applicatio11 rejected by Land Acquisition Office1-Writ-High Cowt directing the State to make referenc~Appeal prefemd by Stat~Held since the application came to be filed a long after about three years from the date D cf the award, the direction issued by the High Cowt is clearly illegal.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1964 of 1989 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.88 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 5825 of 1986.

Ms. N. Mukherjee and Mrs. H. Wahi for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated March 9, 1988 of the High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 5825/86 and batch directing the appellant to make a reference to the civil Court. The controversy is no longer res integra.

The admitted facts are that the award under Section 11 of the Land G Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed on June 26, 1981. Notice under Section 12(2) was issued on September 18, 1981. After lapse of three years, an application came to be filed on July 30, 1985 seeking reference under Section 18. The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector) rejected the application on December 16, 1985. Challenging that order, the writ petition H came to be filed. In view of the provisions in Section 18(2) read with

STATE v. GOPALBHAI BECHARBHAI 31

Section 31 of the Act, after the notice was received under Section 12(2) A the claimants are required to file an application under Section 18 seeking reference within a period of 30 days from the date of the award when the

4 claimants were present at the time of making the award either in person > or through counsel or within six months from the date of the receipt of the B notice. In view of the fact that notice was issued on September 18, 1981, the application should have been filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award when the person was present or was represented by the counsel before the Collector or six weeks from the date of the receipt C of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 or within six months from

_, the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. Since the application came to be filed a long, after about three years from the date of the award, the direction issued by the High Court is clearly illegal.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A .

Appeals allowed.

...
ABDUR RAHMAN & ORS A v.

ATHIFA BEGUM AND ORS .

. AUGUST 30, 1996

(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

Order 41 Rule 17 CPC-Appeal-Appellant's counsel absent-High Cowt adverted to merits of the case-Recorded that all relevant aspects of the C matter taken into account and 110 ground available for inteiference with the decision of the Trial Court-On appeal, held : High Court ought not have dismissed the appeal on meritlt has transgressed the limit and hence its order set aside-Matter remitted back to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11460 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.95 of the Karnataka High Court in F.A.R.F.A. No. 476 of 1992.

R.S. Massey Verma and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellants.

S.S. Naganand and R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

The qualified notice issued to the respondents indicated that this Court proposed to grant leave against the impugned judgment and order

of the High Court and on allowing the appeal, was expecting to remit the matter back to the file of the High Court for disposal of the matter on its G merits. The respondents' learned counsel has been confronted with the proposition that though the High Court could have dismissed the appeal in default in the absence of the appellants' counsel, it could . not have adverted to the merits of the case. Here, the High Court has recorded that all relevant aspects of the matter have been taken into account in order to H 391

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5S.C.R.

A hold that there was no available ground for interference with the decision of the Trial Court. This was an exercise with which the High Court should have been well-advised not to indulge in at the stage or Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. The Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC says that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the

B appeal on the merits. The High Court havi_ng transgressed that limit, we have therefore no option but to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and put the matter back to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
YESHODA AND ANR. v.

K. NAGARAJAN

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJUMDAR, JJ.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963:

S.28-Suit for specific perfonnance-Decree-Application by judgment C debtor for extension of time to comply with the orde,.._Application by decreeholder for rescission of decree-High Court extending time-Held, High Court has co"ectly exercised the discretion-Section 148 C.P.C. gives power to Court to enlarge the time to comply with the orders of the Cowt from time to time.

D Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

S.148-High Court allowing time to judgment debtor to comply with the decree in a suit for specifif perfonnance-Held, High Court has co"ectly exercised the discretion.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) E No. 18603 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.96 of the Karnataka High Court in I.A. No. 3 in R.F.A. No. 225 of 1984.

P. Mahale for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Divisionbench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No. 3 in G RFA No. 225/84. The admitted position is that in the suit for specific performance the High Court has agreed with the suggestion of the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,80,000. The High Court has extended three months' time from April 21, 1994 for deposit of the amount. Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994 and within three months thereafter on January 17, 1995 the amount came to H be deposited. An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act 4

YESHODAv. K NAGARAJAN 5

was filed to rescind the decree on the ground that the respondent had A committed default in compliance of the conditional decree of the deposit of the amount. The respondent had filed an application for extension of time. The application for rescission of the decree was dismissed and the application for extension of time was allowed. Thus this special leave petition.

It is contended by Mr. Mahale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance. The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time.

We find no force in the contention. Section 148, CPC gives power to the C court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correcty exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the application under Section 28.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
UNION OF INDIA A v.

KISHAN CHAND AND ORS.

OCTOBER 11, 1996.

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28--Enhanced solatium interest and additional benefits-Held : Since the Reference Coult had decided the matter in C December, 1973, claimants not entitled to the said benefits-Instead they are entitled to interest at 6% on enhanced compensation and solatium at 15%.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13264 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.86 of the Delhi High Court D in R.F.A.No. 82/85 in C.M.P. No. 245 of 1985.

N.N. Goswami, Ms. Sushma Suri and Ms. Padma Priya for the appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Notice on respondents 2, 3 and 4 to 20 has been returned with postal F remarks "Address Incomplete". Notice on respondent No.22 has been served. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on them. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Notice was limited only to the issue of applicability of the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

Notification under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on October 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award had granted compensation @ Rs.2,500 per bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated December 19, 1973 enhanced the compensation @ Rs.5,000 per bigha. The High Court H 619

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A on appeal while enhancing the compensation to Rs.12000 per bigha has given the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 by enhancing the solatium and interest and additional amount. In view of the fact that the reference Court had decided the matter in December 1973 the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest and B additional benefit under Sections 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A].

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Instead, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation and solatium at 15%. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified.

No costs.

C G.N.

Appeal allowed.
MANGLA GIRI v.

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

VARANASI AND ANR.

OCTOBER 11, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law:

C Removal from service-Employee charged with shortage of goods under his co11trol-Opportunity given to make good the loss but he did 11ot deposit the money-Order of removal from se1vice passed-No reaso11s assigned-Appeal before the Committee a11d Writ petitio11 dismissed-On appeal held : it is too difficult to believe that the locker was opened in his absence and the amount was taken by somebody when he was on leave on medical D grounds-No illegality in the High Court's order wa1Tanti11g interference.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21230 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.96 of the Allahabad High E Court in W.P.No. 31643 of 1990.

Y.P. Sharma and Debasis Mishra for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F Delay condoned.

The charge against the petitioner is that as per Special Audit for 1981-82, he defalcated a sum of Rs.18,970.85 in General Distribution System, Rs.20,789.50 under Cash and Carry Programme and had shown shortage of four quintals of sugar worth amount Rs.1540 and 80 Kgs. of G sugar worth amount Rs.308 and as per Special Audit report of 1982-83, for a further amount of Rs.23,746.00. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to make good the loss. But he did not deposit the money.

Consequently, an order of his removal from service came to be passed but reasons for the same were not assigned. He filed an appeal before the H Regional Administrative Committee which dismissed the same. When the 624

;..

MANGLAGIRiv. REGNLADMINIS1RATIVECOMMITIEE 625

petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31643/90 the High Court in .the impugned A order dated April 17, 1996 dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.

A contention has been raised by the petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity to defend and except for the year 1991, no direction was given earlier and, therefore, he was denied of reasonable opportunity B to defend himself resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. When the petitioner was given opportunity to make good the loss and he did not deposit the same, it is too difficult to believe that the locker was opened in his absence and the amount was taken by somebody in his absence when he was on leave due to medical C grounds. The theory now set up is too fantastic to be believed. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High.

Court warranting interference.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

G.N.

Petition dismissed.

• •
MRS. SEEMA KUMARI SHARMA

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

OCTOBER 23, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law

Selection-Teachers---<:riteria for selection--lnteralia JO marks allotted for candidates belongi, ng to IRDP f amilies---<:ertificate not produced along C with application--Hence the candidate not awarded the marks---Held, failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for award of 10 marks-Since she has already appeared for the examination, her result has to be declared and her case for appointment to be considered in accordance with mies, if she is selected.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14531-32 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Shimla in O.A.No. 619 of 1995.

Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant.

T.A. Khan and T. Sridharan for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Shimla Bench made in O.A. No. 619/95 and the G review order. The admitted position is that the Director of Education issued a notice for Junior Basic Teacher's Training. The criteria for selection was 100 marks based on the percentage of marks obtained in matric or equivalent examination. 20 marks for candidates belonging rural areas and 10 marks for candidates belonging to backward panchayat were al- H lated. Similarly, 10 marks were alloted for candidates belonging to IRDP

S.K SHARMA v. STATE 649

families. Though the appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family, the A authorities have not considered her claim and consequently did not award 10 marks as required under the criteria. When the appellant filed the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant had not produced the certificate along with the application and, therefore, she is not entitled to the above status. When we directed the appellant to produce the record, she made the certificate a part of the record. Unfortunately, it does not bear the date of issue; but we find that she has been given serial number of the IRDP family. In view of the fact that serial numbers are ascribed to all the candidates in the order, we are of the view that her failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for consideration of award of 10 marks.

Pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court, the appellant has already appeared for the examinations conducted but her result has not been announced.

Therefore, the appeals are allowed; the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. There shall be a direction to declare the result and her case for D appointment will be considered in accordance with the rules, if she is selected. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

BISHAMBER DUTT

OCTOBER 23, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law

Regularisatioit-Class IV employees appointed on part-time basis- C Held, not entitled to regulmisation since they were not appointed on regular basis ac, cording to mies.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.14528-30 of 1996.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Delhi in 0.A. Nos. 1475, 1583-84 of 1995.

Ms. K. Amareshwari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Anubha Jain for the Appellants.

G.S. Beqrar and N.S. Behl for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.

The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990 , November 14, 1991 and September G 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500 per month which was raised to Rs. 600 per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary H to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. 650

U.O.L v. BISHAMBER DUlT 651

Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after A selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is: whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry B of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that they were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to c regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they aie appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is D set aside. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.