2000 (8) TMI 1106 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Procedure for filing applications for 'clarification', 'modification', or 'recall' after dismissal of review petitions.
2. Validity of the judgment of this Court dated 20.8.99 on merits.
3. Interpretation of the Division Bench's orders in Balak Ram Gupta's case.
4. Requirement of elaborate reasons by the Government u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Rights of persons who did not file objections in the u/s 5A inquiry.
6. Relief under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. Validity of the subsequent order dated 7.12.99.
8. Consideration of IA 3 filed by Mrs. Har Kiran Commar.

Summary:

Point 1:
The Court emphasized that a review is not a re-hearing and its scope is very narrow. Applications for 'clarification', 'modification', or 'recall' should not be used to bypass the procedure of circulation in review matters. Such applications, if in substance are review applications, deserve to be rejected straightaway. The Court should not permit hearing of such applications if they are essentially for review, and a second review is not permissible under Order XL, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Points 2 and 3:
The Court decided to address the merits of the case due to the pendency of another Review Petition 21/2000 by Mrs. Har Kiran Commar. The Court reiterated that the judgment in Abhey Ram was correctly decided and should be followed in preference to Sudan Singh. The Division Bench's order dated 18.11.88 in Balak Ram Gupta's case could not supersede the earlier operative order dated 14.10.88, which was confined to the land covered by the 73 writ petitions. The Court held that the latter order could not quash the entire section 5A inquiry and section 6 declaration for lands not covered by the writ petitions.

Points 4 and 5:
The Court held that the Lt. Governor's satisfaction under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act does not require elaborate reasons or reference to objections for every particular land. The satisfaction can be justified by the record on which the section 6 declaration was issued. Claimants who did not file objections in the section 5A inquiry cannot challenge the section 6 declaration on personal grounds. The objections under section 5A, if not filed, imply that personal objections are deemed waived.

Point 6:
The Court considered the fair concession made by the learned Solicitor General regarding the release of land under section 48 of the Act. The applicant Sri Gurdip Singh Uban's case for release under section 48 will be sympathetically considered in light of the factors mentioned in the concession. The Court directed that the applicant's application, if made within 15 days, be considered within 8 weeks, and a reasoned order be communicated.

Point 7:
The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 7.12.99, allowing the petitioner to move the High Court. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Point 8:
The Court rejected IA 3 filed by Mrs. Har Kiran Commar for 'recall' of the order dated 20.8.99, stating that it cannot circumvent the procedure under O.XL.R.3. The applicant may file the documents in the pending review application. The Court permitted the applicant to move the Registry to have the Review application listed in Chambers.

Conclusion:
The IAs 3 to 5 are disposed of as stated, and W.P. 155/2000 is rejected with leave to move the High Court. The directions given under Point 6 and observations under Point 8 are to be noted by the respective parties. No costs were imposed on the applicant Sri Gurdip Singh Uban despite the filing of applications for 'recall', 'modify', and 'recall' after dismissal of the review petition.