UNION OF INDIA Vs. JUBER MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In land acquisition mater, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 2144/2001 arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 1135/2000, vide order dated 19th March, 2001 and remanded these matters to this Court.

(2.) The matter was listed before this Court on 3rd December, 2001, and on that day, it was ordered that all the appeals preferred by the Union of India as well as by the respondent-claimants be listed together. On 27th February, 2006, counsel appearing for the Union of India prayed for time to take appropriate steps for substitution as large number of respondents, original land-holders, died during this proceeding. In the month of March, 2006, applications had been submitted for substitution but those applications were only for substitution without even disclosing the date or time of death of the respondents. On 12th September, 2011, it was noticed that in L.P.A No. 186/1998R, out of 12 respondents, 8 already died and only 4 were alive. However, this Court noticed on 12th September, 2011 that though notices had been issued to the legal representatives of the deceased-respondents but the applications for substitution did not disclose as to when the respondents died. The respondents submitted counter-affidavit on behalf of the surviving respondent No. 11 stating therein that the respondent nos.1,2,3,4,7 and 9 died long back and legal representatives have been taken on record in the Execution Case wherein the appellant's representative is already appearing. Therefore, the appellant has full knowledge of not only the fact of death of the respondents but had also the knowledge the fact of bringing the legal representatives of the respondents on record in the Execution Case, yet even after 2002 the appellant had not taken steps to bring on record the legal representatives in appeals. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted application for substitution but not for setting aside the abatement and without setting aside the abatement, legal representatives of the deceased respondents cannot be taken on record.

(3.) In the matter of land acquisition whereunder the landholders have been deprived of their properties long back in pursuance of the notification of the year 1978 and the lands were acquired in the year 1980 and enhanced compensation has not been paid to the respondents and they died without getting enhanced compensation, we do not find just reason to entertain such application and do not find any reason to set aside the abatement of the appeal. Therefore, these appeals are dismissed as abated.