DES RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain agricultural lands including lands of these appellants were acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 23-1-1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). Award was made in March, 1969 fixing the compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. The appellants and other claimants, not satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, i.e. the reference Court enhanced the compensation @ 2,200/- per bigha from Rs. 2,000/-. The appellants and four other claimants filed appeals before the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation amount. The High Court disposed of six appeals including two appeals of these appellants by common judgment on 11-10-1984 fixing the compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. These appellants did not pursue the matter any further, if aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of the High Court. However, Pratap Singh and others, appellants in one of the six appeals before the High Court, approached this Court aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of the High Court. This Court allowed their Civil Appeal No. 4099/88 by the order dated 22-11-1988 and remanded the case to the High Court with certain observations to re-determine the amount of compensation. The appellants filed review applications long thereafter before the High Court seeking review of the judgment of the High Court dated 11-10-1984 on the ground that Pratap Singh and others whose lands were also acquired under the same notification and who were similarly placed, got higher rate of compensation for the lands acquired along with the statutory benefits, hence the appellants also were entitled for higher amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, the appellants were also entitled for the amount of compensation at the same rate which was allowed to Pratap Singh and others. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgments dated 22-10-1997, dismissed the review applications. Hence, these appeals.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that when this Court has set aside one of the cases covered by common judgment of the High Court, i.e., the case of Pratap Singh and others and after remand of the case, the amount of compensation has been considerably enhanced, the same benefit ought to have been given to the appellants having regard to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act and keeping in view the legislative intention, the benefit of enhanced compensation as determined in the case of Pratap Singh and others ought to have been extended to these appellants as well as this Court, exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to equalize the compensation in respect of similarly placed people in all respects, could enhance the amount of compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- as fixed in the case of Pratap Singh and others after remand of the case. In support of his submissions, he cited few decisions.

(3.) Despite service of notice, none represented the respondents.