G RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two review petitions were filed by the respective petitioners challenging the common judgment made in A.S.Nos.1051 of 2003 and 996 of 2004, dated 29.10.2010. The review petitioner in Review Application No.44 of 2011 was the appellant in A.S.No.1051 of 2003 and the review petitioners in Review Application No.51 of 2011 were the appellants in A.S.No.996 of 2004. This Court heard the appeals along with the appeal filed by the Acquisition Officer in A.S.Nos.169 and 639 of 2005. All the four appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 29.10.2010. This court had upheld the order passed by the LAOP Court fixing the compensation payable to the petitioners at Rs.566/- per cent though they claimed Rs.2000/- per cent before the Labour Court. Before this court when they filed appeals, they had restricted their claim at Rs.1300/-per cent and after adjusting Rs.566/- per cent, they had paid the court fee only for Rs.734/- per cent. Now that the order of the LAOP Court has been upheld, the petitioners have come to this court to review the judgment.

(2.) IN the grounds, it was contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, i.e., this court did not consider the scope of the witness C.W.3 and the xerox copy of the sale deed marked as Ex.C.5. In the earlier round of litigation when this court remanded the matter only for the purpose of production of the data sale deed and when that data sale deed was sought to be let in as an additional evidence, that was not taken note of. The trial court had fixed the award at Rs.1.25 per sq.ft. on the basis of evidence of C.W.2, but neglected to consider Rs.3/- per sq.ft on the basis of C.W.5.

(3.) IN this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Des Raj v. Union of India reported in (2004) 7 SCC 753, wherein in paragraph 14, it was observed as follows: 14.Admittedly, the appellants in these cases did seek for reference under Section 18 of the Act; filed appeals before the High Court and after the High Court delivered the judgment on 11-10-1984, did not challenge the same. The applications were not made under Section 28-A of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation also in these cases. At any rate, the grounds raised in the review applications were not grounds which could be accepted to review or modify the judgment of the High Court dated 11-10-1984. In our view, the High Court was right in dismissing their review applications for the reasons stated in the impugned judgments.