Bansi & Anr. Vs.union of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1205927
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-12-2017
AppellantBansi & Anr.
RespondentUnion of India
Excerpt:
$~ * s-1&2 + in the high court of delhi at new delhi rfa4531986 bansi & anr. ..... appellant through: ms. sumi anand, ms. richa oberoi, mr. prateek kohli and mr. sukriti singh, advocates. + versus union of india ..... respondent through: mr sanjay poddar, senior advocate with mr sanjay kumar pathak and mr sunil kumar jha, mrs. kaomudi kiran pathak, mr. govind kumar and mr. sachin gupta, advocates. and rfa4161986 ram chander & ors. .....appellant through: none. versus union of india ..... respondent through: mr sanjay poddar, senior advocate with mr sanjay kumar pathak and mr sunil kumar jha, mrs. kaomudi kiran pathak, mr. govind kumar and mr. sachin gupta, advocates. coram: justice s.muralidhar justice sanjeev sachdeva % order1205.2017 rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 1 of 15 rev. pet. 310/2008 & cm nos. 12163/2008 (for stay) & 12164/2008 (for condonation of delay in filing the review petition) in rfa no.453/1986 rev. pet. 309/2008 & cm nos. 12159/2008 (for stay) & 12160/2008 (for condonation of delay in filing the review petition) in rfa no.416/1986 dr. s. muralidhar, j.:1. these two review petitions filed by the union of india („uoi‟) seek the recall of the common order and judgment dated 19th october, 2001 passed by the division bench („db‟) of this court in rfa nos. 416/1986 (ram chander and others, through lrs v. uoi) and 453/1986 (bansi & anr. v. uoi).2. these review petitions were filed on 18th august, 2008 nearly seven years after the aforementioned order of which recall is sought. accordingly, both the review petitions are accompanied by applications – cm nos. 12159/2008 (seeking stay of the impugned order) and 12160/2008 (seeking condonation of delay) in review petition no.309/2008 in rfa no.416/1986, and cm nos. 12163/2008 (seeking stay of the impugned order) and 12164/2008 (seeking condonation of delay) in review petition no.310/2008 in rfa no.453/1986.3. notices in both the review petitions as well as in the applications for condonation of delay were issued on 26th august, 2008. on that date, an interim order was passed directing that, “till the next date of hearing, compensation over and above rs. 50 per square yard along with solatium and interest accrued thereto be not released to the appellants.” that interim order has continued since then. rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 2 of 15 4. the facts in rfa no.416/1986 were that the appellants claimed to be the owners of land bearing khasra no.4(3 bighas and 12 biswas) or 3926 square yards located in the revenue estate of village jasola, delhi. this land was notified on 15th june, 1979 under section 4, 6 and 17 of the land acquisition act, 1894 („la act‟). an award was passed on 29th january 1981 by which the land acquisition collector („lac‟) fixed compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.5. as far as rfa no.453/1986 is concerned, the appellants claimed to be the owners of land measuring 10 bighas in khasra no.794/456, 457, 540 tosituated in the same village jasola in respect of which notification dated 15th june, 1979 was issued under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the la act. in respect of these lands too, an award was passed by the lac on 29th january 1981 fixing the same compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.6. both sets of appellants were dissatisfied with the award and sought a reference to the learned additional district judge, delhi („adj‟), under section 18 of the la act. by the judgment and decree dated 28th april, 1986, the learned adj enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land to rs. 22,000/- per bigha.7. dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree and seeking enhancement to rs. 28,000/- per bigha over and above the rate granted by the learned adj, the appellants filed the aforementioned rfas in this court. rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 3 of 15 8. a common judgment was delivered by the db of this court on 19th october, 2001 in a number of rfas including the present two appeals, the lead case being rfa no.416/1986. in an eight-page order, the db allowed the appeals holding that the appellants were entitled to compensation @ rs. 2240 per square yards and that over and above the amount of compensation, the appellants would be paid solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of the collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment. the court further directed that interest on solatium would also be paid in view of the decision of the supreme court in sunder v. union of india 2001 (2) klj449(sc).9. as far as rfa no.453/1986 is concerned, an order was passed on 12th december, 2003 in an application filed by the appellants seeking modification of the decree. the court disposed of those applications allowing the applicants to deposit the deficit court fee. subject to the above, the decree sheet was permitted to be modified granting the appellants rs. 2240/- per square yards in terms of the main judgment. however, the said appellants i.e., bansi and others were not granted interest on the enhanced amount.10. it is stated that the special leave petitions („slps‟) against the above judgment of this court could be filed by the uoi only on 17th november, 2007 in the supreme court. there is a letter placed on record dated 23rd february, 2004 written by the lac to the counsel appearing for the uoi seeking the status of the filing of the slps. the slps filed by the uoi in rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 4 of 15 both the cases were dismissed by the supreme court on 4th february, 2008 by the following order: “inordinate delay of 2130, 1346 & 2166 days has not been explained properly. applications for condonation of delay are rejected. consequently, special leave petitions are dismissed. however, question or law is kept open. ” 11. it is stated by the uoi that after the dismissal of the above slps on account of delay, “the matter was examined in view of the fact that the same has implication[s]. in the other cases and is causing huge loss to the public exchequer”. it was realized that there was an apparent error on the face of the record. this court had been informed during the course of hearing of the appeals, and as recorded in its order dated 19th october, 2001, that slp (civil) no.1608/1999 filed by the uoi in the supreme court against the decision of this court in bholanath v. union of india (1998) vi ad (del) 159 had been dismissed on 12th april, 1999 thereby affirming the market value determined by this court of the lands acquired in bholanath’s case at rs. 2,000/- per sq. yd. the court was further informed that the review petition of the uoi against the above order dated 12th april, 1999 being review petition no.1359/1999 was also dismissed by the supreme court on 13th october, 1999. this court was, however, not informed that independent of the above slps, the delhi development authority (dda) had already filed separate slps in the supreme court.12. it is pointed out that solely on the basis of the judgment in bholanath’s case, the db in the present case in its order dated 19th october, 2001 determined the compensation payable @ rs. 2240/- per square yard by allowing the escalation @ 12% per annum over the rate fixed in rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 5 of 15 bholanath’s case. this court noted that the lands in bholanath’s case in village bahapur were acquired by notification dated 30th june, 1978 whereas in the present case the lands were in jasola and acquired by the notification dated 15th june, 1979.13. additionally bhola nath and other landowners themselves filed slps in the supreme court seeking even further compensation. the uoi has in the present review petitions drawn the attention of this court to the following order dated 22nd november, 2001 passed by the supreme court in civil appeal no.6564/2001 (bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs & anr. v. union of india & anr.) which was listed on that date along with dda's slps: “against the judgement dated 21.8.98 passed by the court, union of india filed s.lp.(c) ....cc160899 which was dismissed by a bench consisting of hon'ble mr. justice s.p. bharucha, as hon'ble the chief justice then and hon'ble mr. justice r.c. lahoti on 18.4.1999 subsequently the claimants smt. narbada devi & ors. separate s.l.ps. against the same judgement of the high court dated 21.8.1998. this court granted leave and the s.l.ps were converted into civil appeal nos. 6565/2001 and 6564/2001. it is stated that within 30 days of receipt of the notice of the appeal, union of india filed separate cross objections in both the appeals. subsequently on 12.10.2001, the appellants narbada devi & bhola nath applied for withdrawal of c.a. nos. 6565/2001 & 6564/2001. the bench while permitting the appeals to be withdrawn stated in their order that insofar as the cross objections that have been filed in these appeals in concerned, they shall survive and be proceeded with if permissible in law. when the cross objections were taken up, by this bench, it was brought to our. notice that the d.d.a. for whom, it is alleged, the land was acquired was not made a patty in earlier appeals. rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 6 of 15 therefore, subsequently, the d.d.a. filed s.lp nos. 6734- 6735/1999 against the same judgement of the high court. union of india has also filed special leave petition against the same judgment of the high court against smt. narbada devi and it is numbered as s.lp. cc712399. since slp(c) ...cc67346735/1999 &slp(c)..cc71231999 and cross objections filed by the union of india arise out of the same judgement, we feel that it would be appropriate if all the matters are heard together. let these matters be placed before hon'ble the chief justice of india for appropriate orders. shri g.l. sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants gave assurance on behalf of the claimants that they would not withdraw, the money deposited and attached with the high court of delhi till these matters are placed before hon'ble the chief justice of india and the same are listed before the court in pursuance of order that may be passed by hon'ble the chief justice of india.” 14. the above facts were not placed before this court when it passed the judgment dated 19th october 2001. this court is now informed that in certain other cases including rfa no.653/1998 (sarupi and anr. v. union of india) and rfa66798 (nain singh v union of india) orders had been passed by other dbs of this court on the basis of the decision in bholanath’s case but were later recalled. the following order passed on 12th september, 2008 in rfa no.653/1998 (sarupi and anr. v. union of india) explains this position: “this review petition has been filed on behalf of the union of india seeking review of the judgment dated 18.11.2004 paragraph 5 of the said judgment clearly indicates that it was based on the earlier judgment of a division bench of this court in rfa no.416/1986 (ram chander v union of india). in the said paragraph 5 it has also been noted that the decision in ram chander’s case has been accepted by the respondents and, rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 7 of 15 therefore, the price determined therein for the acquired land in 1979 was acceptable to the respondents and that they cannot reopen the issue. we note that it was essentially on the basis of this, that the decision was rendered in favour of the appellant. it has now been pointed out to us that the decision of the division bench in ram chander’s case had not been accepted by the respondents. this is clear from the letter dated 19.8.2004 (a copy of which is at page 89 of the review petition) which had been written by the then counsel for the respondent in the writ petition. the said letter indicates that the decision in ram chander’s case had not been accepted by the respondents and that a special leave petition had been filed. although, the aforesaid letter dated 19.8.2004 indicates that the slp had been filed against the decision in ram chander’s case, the slp was apparently filed much later (i.e. on 17.11. 2007). it is another matter that the slp ultimately came to be dismissed on 4.2.2008 on account of inordinate delay. however, the supreme court kept the question of law open. it may also be pointed out that even ram chander's case is now the subject matter of a review petition being rp no.309/2008 in rfa no.416/1986 in which notice has been issued on 26.8. 2008 (by a bench comprising of sanjay kishan kaul and mool chand garg, jj). unfortunately, the fact that the decision in ram chander’s case had not been accepted by the land acquisition department had not been brought to the notice of the court when the order sought to be revived was passed. we are of the view that had it been brought to the notice of the court, the court would not have relied upon the decision in the case of ram chander. anyhow, since the entire order dated 18th november, 2004 is based on the decision of ram chander’s case, and also the understanding of the court that the same had been accepted by the respondents, we feel that the order needs to be set aside and the matter has to be considered afresh in accordance with law. for the foregoing reasons, we allow this petition and set aside rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 8 of 15 the judgment and/or order dated 18.11.2004 this matter be now listed before the regular bench as per roster on 3.12.2008, subject to and after obtaining orders of hon‟ble the chief justice.” 15. in the meanwhile on 19th august, 2004, the counsel to whom the papers were entrusted by the uoi informed that the slp had already been filed. it later transpired that this was incorrect. during pendency of these review petitions, an additional affidavit was filed by the counsel who appeared for the uoi when the rfa was decided pursuant to a notice being issued to her. the affidavit dated 16th december, 2008 of the said counsel merely stated that the uoi had full knowledge of the dismissal of the rfa by this court and that the statement made by her in her letter dated 19th august, 2004 that the slp had already been filed by then was a „typographical error‟. she claims that she was never instructed to file any slp for the uoi. the uoi's slp was ultimately filed only on 17th november, 2007.16. it is urged on behalf of the uoi by mr sanjay poddar, learned senior counsel, that the mere dismissal of its slp without leave being granted did not preclude the uoi from filing a review petition in this court. reference is made to the decision in kunhayammed v state of kerala 2000 (6) scc359 17. ms. sumi anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that till date the applications for condonation of delay in filing the present review petitions have not been allowed and there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions. she submitted that apart from the fact that the slps by the uoi were dismissed on the ground of delay, even the present review petitions were filed six rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 9 of 15 months after the dismissal of the slps and, therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned. she pointed out that the correctness of the decision of the supreme court in kunhayammed v. state of kerala (supra) has been referred to a larger bench of the supreme court.18. on the other hand, it is pointed out by mr. sanjay poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the uoi that the decision in kunhayammed v. state of kerala (supra) has not been stayed and is still a good law. he submitted that the fact that there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record cannot be denied. the very basis of the judgment of this court dated 19th october, 2001 has now been demonstrated to be non-existent. mr poddar pointed out that the decision of this court in bholanath’s case was reversed in delhi development authority v. bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. (2011) 2 scc54and the matters had been remitted to the reference court for deciding the reference afresh after giving the parties, including the dda, an opportunity of hearing. he pointed out that had this fact been brought to the notice of this court, it is quite likely that the judgment dated 19th october, 2001 would have been different.19. while ms anand, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute the above contention as far as merits are concerned, she submits that unless the delay is satisfactorily explained, this court should not entertain these review petitions.20. there is undoubtedly an inordinate delay in the filing of the review petitions. even if the dismissal of uoi's slps by the supreme court is taken to be the starting point, there is still a delay of nearly six months in rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 10 of 15 preferring the review petitions.21. the question that arises is whether from the time that the review petition was first considered by the court i.e., 26th august 2008, the question of delay weighed with the court?. a careful perusal of the orders passed by the court in the review petitions gives the unmistakable impression that the court was, despite being conscious of the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions, persuaded on merits to direct on the first day of their listing i.e. on 26th august, 2008 itself that “compensation over and above rs. 50 per square yard with solatium and interest accrued thereon be not released to the appellants”. had the court not been prima facie satisfied with the merits of the review petitions, it is unlikely that notwithstanding the obvious delay in the filing of the review petitions, the court would consider it appropriate to pass the above interim order.22. it must be recalled that a review was being sought in 2008 of a judgment of october, 2001 with one of the judges constituting the bench which decided the case now presiding over the bench which considered the review petitions. the above interim order was continued throughout thereafter. as soon as the arguments in the case in the supreme court were heard and orders reserved, that fact was brought to the notice of the bench hearing the review petitions. this led to the passing of the order dated 26th february, 2010 which reads as under: “heard learned counsel for the applicant in part. we are informed that the judgment in cross-objections of union of india and dda in bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. & anr. vs. uol & anr. case has been reserved by the supreme rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 11 of 15 court, which is an aspect having ramifications in the present case as urged by learned counsel for the applicant. out of the two substantive pleas urged by the applicant one plea is predicated on bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. r, anr. vs. uol &anr. case. we, thus, consider it proper that we should have the benefit of the view of the supreme court in bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. & anr. vs. uol & anr. case. list for directions on 9.4.2010.” 23. from the above order, two things are clear – one is that this court was still seized of the review petitions and was considering them on merits; second, the court was conscious of the fact that one of the two substantive pleas was predicated on the outcome of the decision of the supreme court in dda's appeals. the court observed: “we, thus, consider it proper that we should have the benefit of the view of the supreme court.” 24. the decision of the supreme court in delhi development authority v bhola nath sharma (dead) by l.rs (supra) could have gone either way. if it affirmed the judgment of this court, then the question of entertaining the review petitions would not arise. it is perhaps for this reason that the court decided to keep these applications for condonation of delay in filing of the review petitions and the applications for stay (in which an interim order had already been passed) pending before the court. on the other hand, if the judgment of this court were to be reversed, then one of the main planks of the case of the original appellants would stand negated. in that event, entertaining the review petitions would become inevitable.25. on 11th february 2011, this court was informed that the supreme court had pronounced judgment in dda's appeals reversing the judgment of this rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 12 of 15 court bholanath’s case. however, the focus shifted to issuance of notice to the beneficiaries in the proceedings. the order dated 11th february, 2011 reads as under: “the judgement has been rendered by the supreme court in dda vs. bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. & ors. (2011) 2 scc54 in terms of the said judgement the absence of notice to beneficiaries of the appellate court would be fatal to the proceedings and the judgement would be a nullity. this has given rise to a direction for adjudication de novo by the reference court. learned counsel for the applicants/lac submits that there are other issues also raised but in any case in the present proceedings no notice was issued to the beneficiaries nor were they parties and thus on this account alone the applicant is entitled to succeed. learned counsels for the appellants seek some time to examine the matter and make submissions on the next date of hearing. the matter is discharged from part heard to be listed before the appropriate bench for directions on 21.2.2011.” 26. it is plain to the court from the reading of the above orders collectively that the entertaining of the review petitions became both imperative and inevitable with the decision of the supreme court in dda v. bhola nath sharma (dead) by lrs. (supra) which reversed the decision of this court. para 43 of the said judgment of the supreme court reads as under: “43. in the result, the appeals are allowed. the impugned judgment of the division bench of the high court as also the judgments of the reference court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the reference court for deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 13 of 15 evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. the reference court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment of the high court and this judgment.” (emphasis supplied) 27. it is, therefore, not possible to accept the plea of the appellants (the non-applicants in the review petitions) that these review petitions ought not to be entertained at all in the first place in view of the delay in their filing. in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, if the court were to entertain such a plea at this stage, it would mean that the very purpose of awaiting the decision of the supreme court in development authority v. bhola nath sharma (dead) by l.rs (supra) for all this while would be defeated. further, if the review petitions were not to be entertained the consequence would be that notwithstanding the court being aware of the reversal of its decision in bhola nath's case, it would allow the said judgment to stand as far as these cases are concerned. that is simply not acceptable to the court.28. in that view of the matter, the delay in filing of the review petitions is condoned. cm nos. 12160/2008 in review petition no.309/2008 in rfa no.416/1986, and cm no.12164/2008 in review petition no.310/2008 in rfa no.453/1986 are allowed.29. the interim order passed by the court on 26th august, 2008 is made absolute during the pendency of the main rfas no.416 and 453 of 1986 on merits subject to any further orders that the roster bench may pass in that regard. cm nos. 12159/2008 in review petition no.309/2008 in rfa rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 14 of 15 no.416/1986 and cm no.12163/2008 in review petition no.310/2008 in rfa no.453/1986 are disposed of.30. for the aforementioned reasons, the present review petitions are allowed. the order passed by this court on 19th october, 2001 is recalled. rfa nos. 453/1986 and 416/1986 are restored to file. the amount that has already been paid to the appellants would be subject to final outcome of the rfas and the further orders that may be passed by the roster bench. rfa nos. 416 and 453/1986 31. list before roster bench on 14th july, 2017. may12 2017 rd s.muralidhar, j sanjeev sachdeva, j rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 15 of 15
Judgment:

$~ * S-1&2 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA4531986 BANSI & ANR. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sumi Anand, Ms. Richa Oberoi, Mr. Prateek Kohli and Mr. Sukriti Singh, Advocates. + versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mrs. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Govind Kumar and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates. AND RFA4161986 RAM CHANDER & ORS. .....Appellant Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mrs. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Govind Kumar and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER

1205.2017 RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 1 of 15 Rev. Pet. 310/2008 & CM Nos. 12163/2008 (for stay) & 12164/2008 (for condonation of delay in filing the review petition) in RFA No.453/1986 Rev. Pet. 309/2008 & CM Nos. 12159/2008 (for stay) & 12160/2008 (for condonation of delay in filing the review petition) in RFA No.416/1986 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

1. These two review petitions filed by the Union of India („UOI‟) seek the recall of the common order and judgment dated 19th October, 2001 passed by the Division Bench („DB‟) of this Court in RFA Nos. 416/1986 (Ram Chander and Others, through LRs v. UOI) and 453/1986 (Bansi & Anr. v. UOI).

2. These review petitions were filed on 18th August, 2008 nearly seven years after the aforementioned order of which recall is sought. Accordingly, both the review petitions are accompanied by applications – CM Nos. 12159/2008 (seeking stay of the impugned order) and 12160/2008 (seeking condonation of delay) in Review Petition No.309/2008 in RFA No.416/1986, and CM Nos. 12163/2008 (seeking stay of the impugned order) and 12164/2008 (seeking condonation of delay) in Review Petition No.310/2008 in RFA No.453/1986.

3. Notices in both the review petitions as well as in the applications for condonation of delay were issued on 26th August, 2008. On that date, an interim order was passed directing that, “till the next date of hearing, compensation over and above Rs. 50 per square yard along with solatium and interest accrued thereto be not released to the Appellants.” That interim order has continued since then. RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 2 of 15 4. The facts in RFA No.416/1986 were that the Appellants claimed to be the owners of land bearing khasra No.4
(3 bighas and 12 biswas) or 3926 square yards located in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, Delhi. This land was notified on 15th June, 1979 under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LA Act‟). An Award was passed on 29th January 1981 by which the Land Acquisition Collector („LAC‟) fixed compensation @ Rs. 3500 per bigha.

5. As far as RFA No.453/1986 is concerned, the Appellants claimed to be the owners of land measuring 10 bighas in khasra No.794/456, 457, 540 to
situated in the same Village Jasola in respect of which notification dated 15th June, 1979 was issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the LA Act. In respect of these lands too, an Award was passed by the LAC on 29th January 1981 fixing the same compensation @ Rs. 3500 per bigha.

6. Both sets of Appellants were dissatisfied with the Award and sought a reference to the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi („ADJ‟), under Section 18 of the LA Act. By the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 1986, the learned ADJ enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 22,000/- per bigha.

7. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree and seeking enhancement to Rs. 28,000/- per bigha over and above the rate granted by the learned ADJ, the Appellants filed the aforementioned RFAs in this Court. RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 3 of 15 8. A common judgment was delivered by the DB of this Court on 19th October, 2001 in a number of RFAs including the present two appeals, the lead case being RFA No.416/1986. In an eight-page order, the DB allowed the appeals holding that the Appellants were entitled to compensation @ Rs. 2240 per square yards and that over and above the amount of compensation, the Appellants would be paid solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment. The Court further directed that interest on solatium would also be paid in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India 2001 (2) KLJ449(SC).

9. As far as RFA No.453/1986 is concerned, an order was passed on 12th December, 2003 in an application filed by the Appellants seeking modification of the decree. The Court disposed of those applications allowing the applicants to deposit the deficit Court fee. Subject to the above, the decree sheet was permitted to be modified granting the Appellants Rs. 2240/- per square yards in terms of the main judgment. However, the said Appellants i.e., Bansi and others were not granted interest on the enhanced amount.

10. It is stated that the Special Leave Petitions („SLPs‟) against the above judgment of this Court could be filed by the UOI only on 17th November, 2007 in the Supreme Court. There is a letter placed on record dated 23rd February, 2004 written by the LAC to the counsel appearing for the UOI seeking the status of the filing of the SLPs. The SLPs filed by the UOI in RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 4 of 15 both the cases were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4th February, 2008 by the following order: “Inordinate delay of 2130, 1346 & 2166 days has not been explained properly. Applications for condonation of delay are rejected. Consequently, special leave petitions are dismissed. However, question or law is kept open. ” 11. It is stated by the UOI that after the dismissal of the above SLPs on account of delay, “the matter was examined in view of the fact that the same has implication[s]. in the other cases and is causing huge loss to the public exchequer”. It was realized that there was an apparent error on the face of the record. This Court had been informed during the course of hearing of the appeals, and as recorded in its order dated 19th October, 2001, that SLP (Civil) No.1608/1999 filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in Bholanath v. Union of India (1998) VI AD (Del) 159 had been dismissed on 12th April, 1999 thereby affirming the market value determined by this Court of the lands acquired in Bholanath’s case at Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yd. The Court was further informed that the review petition of the UOI against the above order dated 12th April, 1999 being Review Petition No.1359/1999 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13th October, 1999. This Court was, however, not informed that independent of the above SLPs, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had already filed separate SLPs in the Supreme Court.

12. It is pointed out that solely on the basis of the judgment in Bholanath’s case, the DB in the present case in its order dated 19th October, 2001 determined the compensation payable @ Rs. 2240/- per square yard by allowing the escalation @ 12% per annum over the rate fixed in RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 5 of 15 Bholanath’s case. This Court noted that the lands in Bholanath’s case in Village Bahapur were acquired by notification dated 30th June, 1978 whereas in the present case the lands were in Jasola and acquired by the notification dated 15th June, 1979.

13. Additionally Bhola Nath and other landowners themselves filed SLPs in the Supreme Court seeking even further compensation. The UOI has in the present review petitions drawn the attention of this Court to the following order dated 22nd November, 2001 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6564/2001 (Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.) which was listed on that date along with DDA's SLPs: “Against the judgement dated 21.8.98 passed by the Court, Union of India filed S.LP.(C) ....CC160899 which was dismissed by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, as Hon'ble the Chief Justice then and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti on 18.4.1999 subsequently the claimants Smt. Narbada Devi & Ors. separate S.L.Ps. against the same judgement of the High Court dated 21.8.1998. This court granted leave and the S.L.Ps were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 6565/2001 and 6564/2001. It is stated that within 30 days of receipt of the notice of the appeal, Union of India filed separate cross objections in both the appeals. Subsequently on 12.10.2001, the appellants Narbada Devi & Bhola Nath applied for withdrawal of C.A. Nos. 6565/2001 & 6564/2001. The bench while permitting the appeals to be withdrawn stated in their order that insofar as the cross objections that have been filed in these appeals in concerned, they shall survive and be proceeded with if permissible in law. When the cross objections were taken up, by this Bench, it was brought to our. notice that the D.D.A. for whom, it is alleged, the land was acquired was not made a patty in earlier appeals. RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 6 of 15 Therefore, subsequently, the D.D.A. filed S.LP Nos. 6734- 6735/1999 against the same judgement of the High Court. Union of India has also filed special leave petition against the same judgment of the High Court against Smt. Narbada Devi and it is numbered as S.LP. CC712399. Since SLP(C) ...CC67346735/1999 &SLP(C)..CC71231999 and cross objections filed by the Union of India arise out of the same judgement, we feel that it would be appropriate if all the matters are heard together. Let these matters be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the claimants gave assurance on behalf of the claimants that they would not withdraw, the money deposited and attached with the High Court of Delhi till these matters are placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and the same are listed before the court in pursuance of order that may be passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.” 14. The above facts were not placed before this Court when it passed the judgment dated 19th October 2001. This Court is now informed that in certain other cases including RFA No.653/1998 (Sarupi and Anr. v. Union of India) and RFA66798 (Nain Singh v Union of India) orders had been passed by other DBs of this Court on the basis of the decision in Bholanath’s case but were later recalled. The following order passed on 12th September, 2008 in RFA No.653/1998 (Sarupi and Anr. v. Union of India) explains this position: “This review petition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India seeking review of the judgment dated 18.11.2004 Paragraph 5 of the said judgment clearly indicates that it was based on the earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.416/1986 (Ram Chander v Union of India). In the said paragraph 5 it has also been noted that the decision in Ram Chander’s case has been accepted by the respondents and, RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 7 of 15 therefore, the price determined therein for the acquired land in 1979 was acceptable to the respondents and that they cannot reopen the issue. We note that it was essentially on the basis of this, that the decision was rendered in favour of the appellant. It has now been pointed out to us that the decision of the Division Bench in Ram Chander’s case had not been accepted by the respondents. This is clear from the letter dated 19.8.2004 (a copy of which is at page 89 of the review petition) which had been written by the then counsel for the respondent in the writ petition. The said letter indicates that the decision in Ram Chander’s case had not been accepted by the respondents and that a Special Leave Petition had been filed. Although, the aforesaid letter dated 19.8.2004 indicates that the SLP had been filed against the decision in Ram Chander’s case, the SLP was apparently filed much later (i.e. on 17.11. 2007). It is another matter that the SLP ultimately came to be dismissed on 4.2.2008 on account of inordinate delay. However, the Supreme Court kept the question of law open. It may also be pointed out that even Ram Chander's case is now the subject matter of a review petition being RP No.309/2008 in RFA No.416/1986 in which notice has been issued on 26.8. 2008 (by a Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mool Chand Garg, JJ). Unfortunately, the fact that the decision in Ram Chander’s case had not been accepted by the Land Acquisition Department had not been brought to the notice of the court when the order sought to be revived was passed. We are of the view that had it been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court would not have relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Chander. Anyhow, since the entire order dated 18th November, 2004 is based on the decision of Ram Chander’s case, and also the understanding of the Court that the same had been accepted by the respondents, we feel that the order needs to be set aside and the matter has to be considered afresh in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this petition and set aside RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 8 of 15 the judgment and/or order dated 18.11.2004 This matter be now listed before the Regular Bench as per roster on 3.12.2008, subject to and after obtaining orders of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice.” 15. In the meanwhile on 19th August, 2004, the counsel to whom the papers were entrusted by the UOI informed that the SLP had already been filed. It later transpired that this was incorrect. During pendency of these review petitions, an additional affidavit was filed by the counsel who appeared for the UOI when the RFA was decided pursuant to a notice being issued to her. The affidavit dated 16th December, 2008 of the said counsel merely stated that the UOI had full knowledge of the dismissal of the RFA by this Court and that the statement made by her in her letter dated 19th August, 2004 that the SLP had already been filed by then was a „typographical error‟. She claims that she was never instructed to file any SLP for the UOI. The UOI's SLP was ultimately filed only on 17th November, 2007.

16. It is urged on behalf of the UOI by Mr Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior counsel, that the mere dismissal of its SLP without leave being granted did not preclude the UOI from filing a review petition in this Court. Reference is made to the decision in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC359 17. Ms. Sumi Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argued that till date the applications for condonation of delay in filing the present Review Petitions have not been allowed and there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions. She submitted that apart from the fact that the SLPs by the UOI were dismissed on the ground of delay, even the present review petitions were filed six RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 9 of 15 months after the dismissal of the SLPs and, therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned. She pointed out that the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

18. On the other hand, it is pointed out by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the UOI that the decision in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (supra) has not been stayed and is still a good law. He submitted that the fact that there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record cannot be denied. The very basis of the judgment of this Court dated 19th October, 2001 has now been demonstrated to be non-existent. Mr Poddar pointed out that the decision of this Court in Bholanath’s case was reversed in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. (2011) 2 SCC54and the matters had been remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the reference afresh after giving the parties, including the DDA, an opportunity of hearing. He pointed out that had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court, it is quite likely that the judgment dated 19th October, 2001 would have been different.

19. While Ms Anand, learned counsel for the Appellants is unable to dispute the above contention as far as merits are concerned, she submits that unless the delay is satisfactorily explained, this Court should not entertain these review petitions.

20. There is undoubtedly an inordinate delay in the filing of the review petitions. Even if the dismissal of UOI's SLPs by the Supreme Court is taken to be the starting point, there is still a delay of nearly six months in RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 10 of 15 preferring the review petitions.

21. The question that arises is whether from the time that the review petition was first considered by the Court i.e., 26th August 2008, the question of delay weighed with the Court?. A careful perusal of the orders passed by the Court in the review petitions gives the unmistakable impression that the Court was, despite being conscious of the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions, persuaded on merits to direct on the first day of their listing i.e. on 26th August, 2008 itself that “compensation over and above Rs. 50 per square yard with solatium and interest accrued thereon be not released to the Appellants”. Had the Court not been prima facie satisfied with the merits of the review petitions, it is unlikely that notwithstanding the obvious delay in the filing of the review petitions, the Court would consider it appropriate to pass the above interim order.

22. It must be recalled that a review was being sought in 2008 of a judgment of October, 2001 with one of the Judges constituting the Bench which decided the case now presiding over the Bench which considered the review petitions. The above interim order was continued throughout thereafter. As soon as the arguments in the case in the Supreme Court were heard and orders reserved, that fact was brought to the notice of the Bench hearing the review petitions. This led to the passing of the order dated 26th February, 2010 which reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the applicant in part. We are informed that the judgment in cross-objections of Union of India and DDA in Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. Vs. UOl & Anr. case has been reserved by the Supreme RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 11 of 15 Court, which is an aspect having ramifications in the present case as urged by learned counsel for the applicant. Out of the two substantive pleas urged by the applicant one plea is predicated on Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. R, Anr. Vs. UOl &Anr. case. We, thus, consider it proper that we should have the benefit of the view of the Supreme Court in Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. Vs. UOl & Anr. case. List for directions on 9.4.2010.” 23. From the above order, two things are clear – one is that this Court was still seized of the review petitions and was considering them on merits; second, the Court was conscious of the fact that one of the two substantive pleas was predicated on the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in DDA's appeals. The Court observed: “we, thus, consider it proper that we should have the benefit of the view of the Supreme Court.” 24. The decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By L.Rs (supra) could have gone either way. If it affirmed the judgment of this Court, then the question of entertaining the review petitions would not arise. It is perhaps for this reason that the Court decided to keep these applications for condonation of delay in filing of the review petitions and the applications for stay (in which an interim order had already been passed) pending before the Court. On the other hand, if the judgment of this Court were to be reversed, then one of the main planks of the case of the original Appellants would stand negated. In that event, entertaining the review petitions would become inevitable.

25. On 11th February 2011, this Court was informed that the Supreme Court had pronounced judgment in DDA's appeals reversing the judgment of this RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 12 of 15 Court Bholanath’s case. However, the focus shifted to issuance of notice to the beneficiaries in the proceedings. The order dated 11th February, 2011 reads as under: “The judgement has been rendered by the Supreme Court in DDA Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC54 In terms of the said judgement the absence of notice to beneficiaries of the appellate court would be fatal to the proceedings and the judgement would be a nullity. This has given rise to a direction for adjudication de novo by the reference court. Learned counsel for the applicants/LAC submits that there are other issues also raised but in any case in the present proceedings no notice was issued to the beneficiaries nor were they parties and thus on this account alone the applicant is entitled to succeed. Learned counsels for the appellants seek some time to examine the matter and make submissions on the next date of hearing. The matter is discharged from part heard to be listed before the appropriate Bench for directions on 21.2.2011.” 26. It is plain to the Court from the reading of the above orders collectively that the entertaining of the review petitions became both imperative and inevitable with the decision of the Supreme Court in DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By Lrs. (supra) which reversed the decision of this Court. Para 43 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: “43. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as also the judgments of the Reference Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 13 of 15 evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Reference Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment of the High Court and this judgment.” (emphasis supplied) 27. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the plea of the Appellants (the Non-Applicants in the review petitions) that these review petitions ought not to be entertained at all in the first place in view of the delay in their filing. In the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, if the Court were to entertain such a plea at this stage, it would mean that the very purpose of awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) By L.Rs (supra) for all this while would be defeated. Further, if the review petitions were not to be entertained the consequence would be that notwithstanding the Court being aware of the reversal of its decision in Bhola Nath's case, it would allow the said judgment to stand as far as these cases are concerned. That is simply not acceptable to the Court.

28. In that view of the matter, the delay in filing of the review petitions is condoned. CM Nos. 12160/2008 in Review Petition No.309/2008 in RFA No.416/1986, and CM No.12164/2008 in Review Petition No.310/2008 in RFA No.453/1986 are allowed.

29. The interim order passed by the Court on 26th August, 2008 is made absolute during the pendency of the main RFAs No.416 and 453 of 1986 on merits subject to any further orders that the Roster Bench may pass in that regard. CM Nos. 12159/2008 in Review Petition No.309/2008 in RFA RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 14 of 15 No.416/1986 and CM No.12163/2008 in Review Petition No.310/2008 in RFA No.453/1986 are disposed of.

30. For the aforementioned reasons, the present review petitions are allowed. The order passed by this Court on 19th October, 2001 is recalled. RFA Nos. 453/1986 and 416/1986 are restored to file. The amount that has already been paid to the Appellants would be subject to final outcome of the RFAs and the further orders that may be passed by the Roster Bench. RFA Nos. 416 and 453/1986 31. List before roster Bench on 14th July, 2017. MAY12 2017 rd S.MURALIDHAR, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RFA No.453/1986 & RFA No.416/1986 Page 15 of 15