evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
R. PARANGUSAM ETC.

CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR AND ANR.

JULY 22, 1996

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

Se1vice La1v--{~01111ntlso1y rctire111ent-Order set aside b.v Tribunal and 111atter ren1ittcd lo (/ni,'crJvncnt for conducting enqui1y ajtcr giving oppo1tu11ity

to employce--Orde1s for flxarion of pension-Held in vieiv of !he facl tlwr employee had already re/ired direction for fresh enquily was not called C for-Order of T1ibunal set asid~Dircclion to consider eniployee's pron1otion at par }'Vi th juniors pronzoted during enquily--lf found eliJ, rible pronzotion should he granted ivith consequential benefits.

CIVIL APPELLATE .TURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9863 of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment aml Order datet! 18.12.92 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 2423 of 1990.

C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We requested Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel to assist the appellant. We have heard the arguments for the State and also

Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan. The Tribunal in the impugned order, while setting G aside the order of compubory retirement from service, remitted the matter to the Ci-ovcrn1nent to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant and based thereon to pass appropriate orders for fixation of the pension etc. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired fron1 service. It is also not in dispute that the advances dra\vn for construction of the houe, allot1nent of the house in the name of his wife by Housing H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment caused to the Stale. Since he had already retired from service, we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Government is directed to consider his case for promotion B on par with the juniors who were promoted pending enquiry, and then grant him promotion if he is found eligible with all consequential reliefs.

The Government will also redetermine his notional scale of pay on the promotional post and pay the arrears of salary and also pension as if he had retired on promotional post. This action should be taken and payment made within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

The appeals arc accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals allowed.
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST A v.

RAM PARKASH AND ORS.

MARCH 21, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Detem1i11ation of compensation-Pending detennination execution application filed by respondent for realisation of amount due--Objection raised C by appellant Tntst that in view of the fact that amount deposited was more than what was due to respondent execmion application should be dismissec}-Rejection of objection raised-;-Confinnation by Hilff1 Cou!f-Appeal-He/d on an earlier occasion-Supreme Court has set aside the award made by the Tribunal on the ground that it was made by President wiOwut participation by other members-In this case award being non est responde/11 D cannot execute the decree until fresh award is mad~Amount already paid to respondelll would be subject to the result of the fresh award.

Kamal Improvement Trust, Kamal v. Smt. Parkash Wanti (dead) & Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5259 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993.

M.L. Verma, S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga and Ms.

Monika Banot for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing on G behalf of the respondents.

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993 on December 14, H 767

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996) 3 S.C.R.

1993. It is not necessary to dilate upon all the material facts. Suffice it to state that this Court on an earlier occasion had remanded the self-same matter for determination of the compensation of the Phar land. Pending the determination, the respondents filed Execution Application for realisation of certain amount said to be due. The appellant-Trust filed objection B stating that the appellant had deposited more than what was due to the respondents. Therefore, the execution application deserves to be dismissed. The objection was over-ruled and on revision, the High Court confirmed the same. Thus appeal by special leave.

In an analogous situation when the very award of the Tribunal was C questioned by the appellant, this Court in Kamal Improvement Trust,

Kamal v. Parkash Wanti (Dead) & Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151 bad held that the judgment of the Tribunal without there being participation by the other members, is illegal and non est. Accordingly, it was set aside. Consequently, in law as on date, there is no award in existence. Resultantly, the respondents cannot execute the decree until an award is made afresh in accord- D ance with law. The appellant admittedly had deposited the amount pending revision in the High Court. In view of the fact that the award was set aside, any amount paid would be subject to the result in the award that could be made by the Tribunal under the Act.

E The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR v.

KRISHNA PILLAI (DEAD) AND ORS.

MARCH 22, 1996

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

Hindu Law:

Hindu u11divided famil:,-Appe//ant, one of the members of the family C in possession of certain properties 011 the basis of alleged family arrangeme11tlaim for paltition a11d a//otme11t of share i11 tenns of the arrangeme11t-Other members disputi11g , the family arra11geme11t a11d claimi11g the property as self-acquired by their father-Held, there appears to have been some arra11gement-Appe//ant W retai11 ]/3rd of the property and surre11der the remaini11g 2/3rd property to the contesting respo11de11ts who are. the D subsequent purchasers from the other family members.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.83 of the Madras High E Court in A.S. No. 212 of 1983.

S. Sivasubramaniam and R.A. Perumal for the Appellants.

Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

We have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 212/83. It has a chequered history.

G By order dated July 27, 1992 in CA. No. 2718/92 this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether there was any family arrangement. The High Court has held that there is no family arrangement.

Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the partition of the property and allotment of his share in terms thereof. Thus this appeal by special leave.

H The only question raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior

IU. NAIR v. K. PILLAI 811

counsel for the appellant is : whether among the members of the family, A there was th~ arrangement under hich the appellant Was put in possession of the entire property , and he has been in possession right from 1977 under the family arrangement ? The case of te respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the property, therefore, is selfacquired property. Equally the case of the 5th respondent is that his mother also conveyed her own Interest. Therefore, it is not partible. B It would be obvious that the responents have had some arrangement; otherwise the appellant would not have had the poss, ssion of the property and management thereof. Under these circumstances, . we feel that the interests of justice ould be met by directing the appellant to retain l/3rd of the.property and surrender the remaining 2/3rd property, to the contest- C ing respondents , who are the subsequent purchasers fromthe other family members . .The appellant should a\so return l/3rd consideration paid by the respondents to_ the other members in the respective sale deeds .. He is further. directed to demarcate and deliver 2/3rd property within two months from !<;>day.

•· ' . . . ' . •

·'I' The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to

dliver possessio~ of'the property to the respondents without any further order of Court. No costs. ' , ·,, \l . ·,•

R.P.

Appeai allowed. , '

l .

.r ' •

I ' . ' ,,, . ,,

,_ '

J ,.

~ •• 1

-~ "

. . .

- . -- " ' ' '
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.

. v.

LAXMAN GAJANAN DESAI AND ANR. ETC.

MARCH 25, 1996

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

. Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1966. c Salt pan land-Licence-Renewal of-Applications for title pending before competent authority-Held, competent authority would dispose of the applications-Pending decision licences would be renewed.

, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6743 of

D 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. l151 of 1984.

A. Jayaram, Additional Solicitor General, R.R. Mishra, K. Madhava

E Reddy, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Binu Tamta, C. Babu, Dr. R.B. Masodkar, K.L.

Taneja, A.M. Khariwilkar for the appearing Parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted

F We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

l In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15356/92 dated February 26, 1996, the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. 2333/1983 by order dated July 29, 1991 directed that the appellants cannot insist upon the

G respondents conceding to the title of the Government. It directed the appellant to renew the licence without insisting upon conceding the title of the appellant. In the appeal, this Court had held that for obtaining licence/renewal, title to the property or a lease. from the. owner is a pre-condition. In that case, the Deputy Collector had held that the respondent had title to property and appeal thereon was pending. Accordingly H this Court had directed the appellant to grant renewal of the licence 872

0 U.O.l. v. L.G. DESAI 873

pending decision on title.

In these cases, admittedly, no decision on title has yet been given by any authority. The respondents are directed to file their claims before the competent authority (Collector/District MagL, trate, as the case may be) within one month from today either as an owner or a lessee from the owner.

The competent.authority is directd'to issue notice to the Central Govern- B ment and after considering the material and affording an opportunity of hearing and after taking into consideration the law on vesting, dispose of all those applicatiOJ).S on title. Subject to ihe result theein, the licences under the Salt Act would be issued/renewed. Pending decL, ion, the appellants are directed to grant renewal. The authority i.s direded to dispose of C those matters within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the c9py ofth~ orde~. . '

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. . ·- -.•' . . ' . ' .

'R:P.

Appeals disposed of.

~. . . - '

. ~

,,
BHARMAPPA NEMANNA KAWALE AND ANR.

DHODI BHIMA PATIL AND ORS.

MARCH 25, 1996

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

Land Laws:

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 :

S.185-A-Suit for eviction decreed by civil court holding that defendant was not a tenant-Execution of decre,,-Plea of want of jural relationship raised in execution negative~High Cowt directing executing court to decide • the issue of tenancy-Held, the issue of tenancy having become final held, the issue of tenancy having become final under the decree, executing cowt was D right in refusing to ente1tain the objection for executing the decree-High Court

not justified in directing executing court to consider the objection.

C!Vl1' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 1996.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.91 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 319 of 1982.

Dr. R.B. Masodkar and Ms. Vrinda Dhar for the Appellants.

A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Substitution ordered.

G Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

The admitted position is that the civil Court decreed the suit for eviction against the appellant holding that he was not a tenant which order had become final. The same plea of want of jural relationship is sought to H be raised in execution. When the objection raised was negatived, the High 884

. ,

B.N. KAWALEv. D, B. PATIL 885

' f Court in Writ Petition No. 3319 of 1992 by order dated November 22, 1991 A directed the 'executing Court to go into the question. Accordingly,, this appeal by special leave came to be filed. ~

Shri Bhasme, learned counsel for the espondenfs, contended that irr view of the specific language employed in Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands.Act, 1948 the only c

1 ompetet authority B that has to go into the question is the revenue authority under the Ai:t and civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the appellant is a tenant or not. There fore, the High Court was right in directing the executing court to go into the questfon. It is rather unfortunate that the respondent has allowed the decree ho_lding that he is not a tenant to C become fmal. Having allowed it to becme final, it 'is not open to him to contend that he is still a tenant under .the Act and therefore the decree is nullity. Under those circumstances, the executing Court was right in refusing to entertain the objection for executing the decree. The High Court was not justified, the circumstances, in directing the executive Court to consider the objection. • , . ·

D ·

'"· t_ ' The appeal.is acco; dingly allowed. No costs .. :c:,

R.P. •'

. ' .

. ' '.fl .. ,,

. l . '

. .. '

'• .

' •·

, I

Appal allowed.

-·•·

t "
A SHRI JAi KISHAN

SHRI KESHA V RAM AND ORS.

DECEMBER 13, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136.

Finding off act-lnteif erence with by Supreme Court-On the facts of C case High Court found that the view taken by Appellate Court was not vitiated by any illegality-Finding substantiated by Report of Local Commissioner--Held in such circumstances it was not necessary for the Supreme

Court to go into the matter.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) D No. 23678 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dat(:d 8.7.96 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No. 448 of 1990.

Mahendra Singh and Devendra Singh, for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

It is stated in the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court at pages 4 and 5 thus :

"When the matter ws argued before me, I was of the opinion that the measurements had not been taken by the Tehsildar and the Revenue Patwari in accordance with the well set rules of procedure in this behalf. Consequently, with the consent of the parties, I passed an order appointing another Local Commissioner i.e.

Tehsildar Kasauli and issued certain directions to him to go to the spot and measure the site in dispute and to submit a report in detail. This order was passed on 20th May, 1996 and this judgment be read in continuation of that order, it may also be noticed at this stage that the parties before me had undertaken that they will abide by the report to be submitted by the Local Commissioner and no objections would be filed before this Court against that. The report

JAIKISHAN v. KESHAVRAM 101

of the Local Commissioner has bee\received by this Court in A sealed cover which was ordered to be bpened in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This report is hereby marked as Ex. C-1 and it shall form part of the record."

On perusal of the report, the High Court has stated thus :

"It is also there in the report that the appellantdefendant was unable to substantiate his claim that there was old existing building on the disputed site which he alleges to have purchased through the registered sale deed. On measurements, it has been found that

the defendant has encroached upon an area belonging to the C plaintiff to the extent of 0-4 Biswas. The report is further accompanied by the plan which was prepared by the Local Commissioner and the encroachments stands indicated therein. The statements of the parties were also recorded by the Local Commissioner and are attached to the report along with the field book."

On the basis of the above factual matrix, the High Court has found that the view taken by the appellate Court was not vitiated by any illegality since that finding was substantiated by the report, Ex. C-1 given by the Commissioner appointed by the High Court. This being the factual position, we do not propose to go into the matter.

The special leave petition is dismissed.

T.NA.

Petition dismissed.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v.

LOHIT KUMAR ROY

JULY 24, 1996

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sectiolls 4( 1) alld 23.

Land acquisitioll-Detennination of compensatim..-Notification under Section 4(1 )-Lapse of-lmw of secolld notification-Ill the meantime pm' ties clainzing higher con1pensation executed a docunzcnt with a view to inflating n1a1*et valu~No other evidence to asce1tain enhance111ent of contpensation-In such circun1stances aivard of Collector not confinne~Matter remitted to Refere!lce Cmat to decide compe!lsation afresh on the basis of evidence vis-a-t-is any other reference having sbnilar facts.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2467 of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.78 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 109 of 1977.

Tapas Ray, G.S. Chatterjee and Ms. Aruna Banerjee for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 F (for short, the "Act") initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequently the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @Rs. 2,310 per acre. In G this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 735, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000 per acre relying upon Ext. l(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisition and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this document came to be executed between the parties who are claiming higher compensation. It would be obvious that after the first notification was issued and before the second notification came to be published this document was brought into existence to inflate the market

value. Under these circumstances, the High Court in another case was well justified in doudting the correctness of it. Unfortunately, except that document, there is no other evidence for enhancement of the compensation.

But in view of the fact that large extent of the lands are involved and we do not have the advantage of any other evidence or assistance from respondents, we are not inclined to confirm the award of the Collector.

Under these circumstances, we set aside the award of the court and the High Court and remit the matter to the reference court lo decide the compensation afresh on the basis of the evidence vis-a-vis any other reference pending before it having similar facts and decide that matter according to law.

D The appeal in accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
MIS. KASHMIR ELECTRIC AND HARDWARE CORPORATION A

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JULY 26, 1996

[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B

Arbitratioll Act, 1944 :

Arbitrator-Miscondui; t-Arbitrator conducting sittillgs ill the premises owlled by the appellants and while doing so accepting tea and refreshntellt C fivm them alollgwith both the contesting parties-Held, ill the facts alld circunistances, arbitrator cannot be }Jresiuncd to have co1rupted hiniself in accepting the coiutesies.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 9768 of D

From the .T udgmcnt and Order dated 12.5.93 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in C.F.A. No 84 of 1987.

D.D. Thakur and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellant.

Ashok Mathur for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

F We have before us the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the Arbitrator had not misconducted himself or the proceedings. We also have before us the appellate judgment of the Letters Patent Bench under appeal saying to the contrary. The misconduct blown up is that the Arbitrator had conducted sitting/sittings in the premi, es owned by the appellants and had during that G while accepted tea and refreshment from them and hence to have become guilty of misconduct. It is admitted that he was not alone in that regard as both the contesting parties before him had equally shared the use of the premises for the purpose as well as refreshments as part of courtesies. No objection of any sort, at any point of time, was taken by any one either with H 147

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A regard to the place of conduct of the proceedings or to those courtesies e>.tended in the form of refreshment. We fail lo appreciate as to how could the arbitrator be presumed to have corrupted himself in accepting those courtesies, in these facts and circumstances. Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the Slate of .Tammu and Kashmir is candid enough

B to stale lhal he is unable to support the decision of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court in any manner. We, therefore, without going into further details, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Letters Patent Bench and restore that of the learned Single Judge without any order as to costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.