2004 (2) TMI 690 - SC - Indian Laws

Revocation of special leave granted in the civil appeal on the ground of res judicata - Review petition - mistakes apparent on the face of the record - maintainability of the appeal - Enhancement of compensation for land acquisition - Government land and tea estate's land - whether the High Court's judgment dismissing the review petition is sustainable - HELD THAT - The review petition in the instant case was filed on 29.7.1998, while the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court was itself filed on 16.10.1998. It was in these circumstances that this Court was persuaded to grant leave in the matter. We see no substance in the contention urged as to the non-maintainability of the appeal. It would be seen that even according to the State Government, if the land was unfit for cultivation and comprised only rocky areas, sandy areas or jaldube areas, the amount of compensation payable was at the rate of ₹ 40,000/- per bigha . As against this, the Collector was directed to fix the compensation at the rate of ₹ 7,000/- per bigha and the District Judge enhanced it to ₹ 22,000/- per bigha . Surely, the tea estate land was much more valuable than land unfit for cultivation . It is nobody's case that the tea estate's land was uncultivated or that there were no tea bushes growing thereupon. Unfortunately, the High court while considering the question of initial compensation amount fixed by the State Government as ₹ 55,000/- per bigha , has treated it as an issue of promissory estoppel and has held against the appellant. Irrespective of whether it is a situation of promissory estoppel or not, the fact that the State Government itself had accepted ₹ 55,000/- per bigha of tea class land as appropriate compensation ought to have been a factor which would have influenced the fixing the compensation for the land. The letter written by the Deputy Commissioner referring to an earlier order dated 20th June 1990, fixing category-wise valuation of different categories of land was just brushed aside on the ground that it did not amount to evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Having lost sight of the material on record, the High Court concluded, there is no material available on record to hold that the land in question falls within a rural area with paddy field and tea cultivation area , which is directly contrary to the Jamabandhi report, which classified the land as 'tea class land'. The cumulative effect of all this evidence is that, we are satisfied that the High Court in fairness and in the interest of justice, ought to have given a second look to its own judgment dated 24.6.1998. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court under appeal and remit the Review Application to the High Court for hearing and disposal, in accordance with law. I.A. is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of special leave granted in the civil appeal on the ground of res judicata.
2. Evaluation of compensation for land acquisition.
3. Review application against the High Court's judgment.

Summary:

1. Revocation of Special Leave:
The respondents sought revocation of the special leave granted in the civil appeal, arguing it was barred by res judicata. The Court clarified that the dismissal of a special leave petition against the main judgment does not constitute res judicata for a special leave petition filed against the order passed in a review petition, provided the review petition was filed before the special leave petition against the main judgment. The Court found this contention misconceived and upheld the maintainability of the appeal.

2. Evaluation of Compensation:
The appellant, a partnership firm owning Rajabari Tea Estate, contested the compensation fixed for the acquisition of its land by the Government of Assam for the Numaligarh Oil Refinery. Initially, the compensation was proposed at Rs. 55,000/- per bigha, but later reduced to Rs. 7,000/- per bigha by the government. The District Judge increased it to Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the appeals of the Collector and the Numaligarh Oil Refinery, leading to the appellant filing a review petition.

3. Review Application:
The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court, however, found mistakes apparent on the face of the record and deemed it a fit case for review. The Court noted several points:
- The Deputy Commissioner initially recommended Rs. 55,000/- per bigha.
- Awards for other nearby tea estates showed compensation at Rs. 55,000/- per bigha.
- Government orders indicated higher compensation rates for various land categories.
- Oral evidence showed the government was prepared to pay Rs. 55,000/- per bigha.
- Similar cases in Sibsagar District showed compensation at Rs. 55,000/- per bigha.
- The High Court failed to fix compensation for tea bushes despite disagreeing with the District Judge's valuation.

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the court to rectify orders passed on mistaken assumptions of facts. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Review Application No. 54 of 1998 was remitted to the High Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. The Court dismissed I.A. No. 3 of 2003 and made no order as to costs.