2005 (8) TMI 681 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court although has a wide power in terms of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it could not have gone outside the pleadings and make out a new case? Whether High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing the claim for interest @ 12% granted by an earlier order of the Division Bench of the same High Court on equitable consideration for depriving them of their lands without taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and payment of compensation was correct?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of High Court's dismissal of interest claims.
2. Validity of equitable compensation.
3. Application of res judicata.
4. Jurisdiction of High Court to alter or question prior judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of High Court's Dismissal of Interest Claims:
The claimants/appellants challenged the High Court of Himachal Pradesh's decision dismissing their claim for interest at 12% per annum, which was granted by an earlier Division Bench order dated 9.9.1985. The High Court had directed the respondents to complete acquisition proceedings and pay interest from the date of possession until payment of interim and final compensation. The appellants argued that the High Court's dismissal was unjust, as the respondents had taken possession of their land in 1968 without formal acquisition or compensation for nearly 17 years.

2. Validity of Equitable Compensation:
The High Court's earlier order had awarded interest as "equitable compensation" in addition to statutory compensation, solatium, and interest. This was intended to address the prolonged deprivation of land without formal acquisition or compensation. The appellants contended that the interest awarded was justified on equitable grounds, given the undue delay in acquisition and compensation.

3. Application of Res Judicata:
The principle of res judicata was central to the appellants' argument. They asserted that the High Court's 1985 judgment, which directed the payment of interest, had attained finality and could not be challenged in subsequent proceedings. The appellants cited multiple legal precedents to support their claim that once a judgment becomes final, it cannot be re-litigated or questioned in later stages of the same proceedings. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the principle of res judicata applies to different stages of the same proceedings and prevents re-litigation of issues already decided.

4. Jurisdiction of High Court to Alter or Question Prior Judgments:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by questioning and altering the interest awarded in the 1985 judgment. The High Court's decision to limit interest payments to the period after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus, once issued, must be obeyed unless overturned by a higher court or altered by legislation. The High Court's attempt to revisit the issue of interest payment was outside its jurisdiction, especially since the earlier judgment had been acted upon and complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and affirmed the Reference Court's decision, which upheld the interest awarded as equitable compensation. The appeals were accepted, and the principle of res judicata was upheld, ensuring that the earlier judgment's directives remained binding and unaltered. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of finality in judicial determinations and the limited scope for revisiting settled issues in subsequent proceedings.