9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the determination of compensation for acquired land, the review of a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the appeal process against the revised compensation rate. Compensation Determination: The appellant, the owner of 3.30 acres of land, sought compensation at a higher rate than initially awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. The Additional District Judge initially awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per katha, which was later reduced to Rs. 75/- per katha after a review application by the State of Bihar. The High Court upheld the revised compensation rate of Rs. 75/- per katha. The Supreme Court found that the appeal could only be against the revised decree and not the original one, ultimately setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the decree passed by the Additional District Judge on 18-8-1961. Review Process and Appeal: The State of Bihar filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, citing new and important evidence regarding the market value of the land. The review led to the reduction of compensation from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 75/- per katha. The appellant filed a cross-appeal challenging the review process and the subsequent order. The High Court acknowledged the error in allowing the review but upheld the revised compensation rate. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appeal could only be against the revised decree, as the original decree had been superseded by the review judgment. Separate Opinion by Justice Krishna Iyer: Justice Krishna Iyer concurred with the decision but expressed regret at the procedural dominance over substantive rights. He highlighted the need for a balance between procedural rules and substantive justice, suggesting a provision for Judges to intervene in cases of procedural flaws leading to inequitable outcomes. While supporting the appeal outcome, he cautioned against sacrificing equity for procedural strictness and advocated for a system that upholds justice above all. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the decree passed by the Additional District Judge. Justice Krishna Iyer's separate opinion underscored the importance of balancing procedural rules with substantive justice to prevent the sacrifice of equity for procedural adherence.
|
