9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition Act, 1894. On 20 th August 1992, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat sent a proposal for acquisition of 751.30 acres of Government land and Patta land for the Numaligarh Oil Refinery Plant site. He requested the Government to approve of the uniform bigha rate of ₹ 55,000/- irrespective of class, for both Government and patta land. 5. By the letter dated 10 th September 1992, the Addl. Secretary to the State Government conveyed the approval of the Government for the proposal for the fixation of uniform rate of ₹ 55,000/- per bigha for both sarkari and patta land proposed to be acquired for the oil refinery. 6. By a letter dated 7.8.1992, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat made a preliminary estimate of the amount of ₹ 5,96,42,853/- for payment as compensation and requested that this amount be placed at the disposal of the Collector, Golaghat. 7. On 4th November 1992, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette. 8. On 25th February 1993, a meeting was held with the Chief Minister, the Revenue Minister and top officials of the State Government including the Chief Secretary and Secretaries of other concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appeals before the High Court challenging the decision of the district Judge vide First Appeal No. 32 of 1997 and First Appeal No. 33 of 1997. By a common judgment dated 24th June 1998, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner being F.A. No. 27 of 1997 and allowed the appeals of the Collector and the Numaligarh Oil Refinery. On 29.7.1998, the petitioner filed a review petition being Review Application No. 54 of 1998 in the judgment dated 24.6.1998. On 16th October 1998, the petitioner also filed a special leave petition before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court. On 4.2.1999, the High Court adjourned the hearing of the review application during the pendency of the special leave petition. On 8.3.1999, the petitioner's special leave petitions being SLP(C) Nos. 18020-22 of 1998 were withdrawn. On 25.8.1999, the High Court dismissed the Review Application No. 54 of 1998 taking the view that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the High Court dated 24.6.1998. On 26.10.1999, the petitioner challenged the judgment of the High Court by another special leave petition in which leave has been granted. 12. The learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be an 'error apparent on the face of the record' justifying the court's exercise of its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. He urges that, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected since a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot allowed to become an appeal in disguise . After having perused the record, we are satisfied that there are mistakes apparent on the face of the record and it is a fit case for review for the reasons that follow. 15. Before we look at the facts of the case, we wish to emphasise the approach to be adopted by the court while administering justice. This Court in S. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595, at p. 630 (para 36) observed: It is the duty of the court to rectify, revise and re-call its orders as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders were passed on a wrong or mistaken assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences. An act of Court should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. 21. Fourthly, the oral evidence on record showed that, at all stages, the Government was prepared to pay ₹ 55,000/- per bigha and it was only the appellant who had taken a rigid stand demanding a higher price. 22. Fifthly, Exhibits 6, 7 8 placed on record prima facie seem to be similar cases of acquisition of land in Sibsagar District, wherein for arable land the estimate of compensation payable made by the Government itself was ₹ 55,000/- per bigha . Exhibit 8 was the case of acquisition of tea class land, which also showed the compensation payable at the same rate as the Government had initially agreed to pay. 23. Sixthly, even if the High Court disagreed with the valuation of tea bushes made by the District Judge, being the Court of First Appeal, it would have had to itself fix the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
