Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Smt. Ratni Devi And Anr. on 27 April, 2006
Author: S Kumar
Bench: S Kumar, S Bhayana
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. These four appeals have been listed before the Court by the Registry in furtherance to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in CA No. 1428 of 2004 (and other connected appeals) in the case titled as Ranvir Singh and Anr. etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc. decided on 7.9.2005. Vide this order, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall proceed to determine the market value of the acquired land upon taking into consideration the materials on record and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the market value of the lands in question.
These appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. However, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order and receipt of records. No costs.
2. In the title of the judgment of the Supreme Court, number of these appeals have also been mentioned, which obviously means that these appeals were required to be listed before the Court for appropriate orders.
3. We may notice that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranvir Singh (supra) relates to acquisition of land in the revenue estate of Village Rithala with regard to four notifications dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981, 13.3.1981 and 31.12.1981, all issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The subject matter of those appeals is no way common to any of the controversies arising in the present cases. Furthermore, these cases have not been decided by the Reference Court or by the High Court on the basis of any of the judgments referred to in any of those cases. These cases are entirely based upon different evidence, principles of law and relate to acquisition of lands in different villages which are not even remotely connected with those appeals. In other words, none of these appeals fall in that category.
4. RFA No. 48/1990 relate to acquisition of the land in Village Fazalpur Mandawali, Delhi, where the notification under Section 4 was issued on 13.11.1959, the award was made and the judgment of this Court in relation to that land dated 14.9.2000 as informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, has attained finality.
5. RFA No. 525/1990 relates to acquisition of the land in the revenue estate of village Matiala where notification under Section 4 was issued on 27.1.1984. This appeal was dismissed as being barred by time vide order dated 20.7.1990. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had filed an appeal against this order. This case is in no way connected with the judgment of the High Court in the case of Ranbir Singh and Anr. v. Union of India.
6. RFA No. 355/1987 relates to acquisition of land in the revenue estate of Village Bankoli, Delhi, where notification under Section 4 was issued on 9.1.1980. This case is also no way connected with the main acquisition in relation to Village Rithala.
7. As far as RFA No. 81/1995 is concerned, the subject matter of this appeal is in relation to acquisition of land in Village Sahupur, vide notification dated 27.1.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Act but Village Rithala was neither subject matter of the notification nor was the judgment pronounced by the Court in these appeals. All the RFAs were disposed of finally by a judgment dated 23.12.1999. Again there is nothing on record to show that any of the parties had preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the High Court, which according to the counsel appearing for the respondent has attained finality.
8. From the above-noticed facts it is clear that these four appeals were wrongly sent by the High Court and were wrongly included in the list of cases before the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court dated 7.9.2005 has no bearing on these cases. They appear to have been wrongly included in the list of remitted cases. In these circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to rehear these appeals on merits or otherwise. Accordingly, these appeals stand finally disposed of.
9. All the files be consigned to the Record Room by the Registry.
