SARLA DEVI JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Application No. 242/2004 is an application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for review of the order dated 4th February, 2004 while C.M. No. 7591/2004 is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the review application (R.A. No. 242/2004). C.M. No. 600/2004 is still another application filed under Section 151 of the CPC for staying of the operation of the judgment and directing the Respondents to maintain status quo. The Petitioner/applicants had filed a writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that the process of acquisition was vitiated as it was ex facie in violation of the statutory mandate of Section 17 (3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the Collector had not offered or tendered 80% of the award before taking the possession. They also pray for grant of relief, in the alternative that Respondents be directed to ensure that alternative suitable site is allotted to the Petitioners as by the process of acquisition they had been deprived of their livelihood. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4th February, 2004 by a Division Bench of this Court. It was noticed in the order that the entire compensation has been paid to Smt. Sarla Devi Jain and Civil Writ No. 672 and 705-715/2004 were the writ petitions where the matters in relation thereto were pending adjudication before the Court. In relation to 80% of the estimated compensation, which has allegedly been paid, being too low, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioners to take steps in accordance with law. In regard to the alternative prayer, the Court directed as under:-

(2.) Review of this judgment of the Court is sought on the ground that the Petitioner had raised a pertinent question as to the validity and legality of the acquisition proceedings and even subsequent demolition of the property in question, without adherence to the statutory provisions of the Act. It was alleged that Section 6 declaration had not been issued, still the property of the Petitioners had been demolished. It is averred that notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 9th October, 2003 followed by a corrigendum of 12th November, 2004. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 26th December, 2003 and the Land Acquisition Collector had directed possession of the property to be taken vide order dated 27th December, 2003 but the Petitioners were dispossessed and the property demolished on 23rd December, 2003 itself. The Petitioner claim to have filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8197/2004 which was dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court, while granting the relief to the Petitioner to file a review petition/application, and that the Petitioner had filed the present review petition in which the emphasis is placed upon the irregularities committed by the Respondents as well as that the policy dated 31st January, 2002 framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi is not being adhered to rehabilitate the Petitioner.

(3.) After notice, reply to the application was filed wherein it was stated that Petitioner has not made out any case and in fact the application is not even maintainable in law. It is stated that 80% of the estimated compensation has already been paid to the Petitioner for the land measuring about 226 sq. mtrs. on 20th January, 2004 which has been received by the Petitioner. On the one hand, the Petitioner, by filing and pursuing contempt petition No. 514/2004 is praying for compliance of the judgment of the Court dated 4th February, 2004 while on the other hand he wants review of the same order and as such the Petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. There is no delay in publishing the declaration under Section 6 and in any case in view of the settled principles of law, it is inconsequential, as the possession has already been taken over and utilised for the public purpose in accordance with the provisions of law. The contents of the review application and the arguments addressed before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner clearly indicate that Petitioner is actually wanting the rehearing of the matter on merits. The order dated 4th February, 2004 was admittedly not questioned by the Petitioner before the Appellate Court. The intent of the application is to press before the Court re-hearing of the matter on the grounds taken up in the writ petition and even the ground which have not been taken in the writ petition. It is an admitted case that possession of the land has already been taken and 80% of the estimated compensation already paid to the petitioners. The legal niceties now sought to be raised by filing the present review petition in any case cannot alter the factual matrix of the case as of today. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, declaration under Section 6 was published and thereafter the possession of the property has been taken. The declaration was issued on a prior date and if it was published a day later, it would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings. The argument that the grounds taken up in the writ petition have not been correctly decided by the Court is no ground for seeking review of the judgment.