2002 Supreme(SC) 543

2002(3) Supreme 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
R.C. Lahoti and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Narpat Singh etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2910-2913 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8342-8345/2001)
Decided on 24-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Paonam, S.K. Bhattacharya, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Ajit Pudussery, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Though the facts and circumstances of the case do not call for interference under Article 136. Still in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution two directions are warranted as laid down in this case to meet the ends of justice in awarding compensation in Land Acquisition cases.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 136 and 142-Nature and scope of appeal by special leave-Necessity of directions under Art. 142-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6, 31(4)-Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1954-Section 60-Notification and declaration under Sections 4 & 6 of Land Acquisition Act whereby land was acquired for Lal Kothi Scheme -Quantum of compensation-Decree based on compromise allotting residential plots in that very scheme in lieu of claimants having given up their right to enhanced amount of compensation-High Court holding the compromise decree to be inexecutable as allotment of land by an award in the same land acquisition proceedings suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction-Appeal against by special leave-Whether a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136? (No)-Result-Appeal dismissed but with two directions under Article 142 of the Constitution to meet the ends of justice.

       Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the present one is not a fit case where we may exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vesting in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution favourably to the appellants and upset the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, propose to dismiss the appeals but subject to directions necessary to meet the ends of justice and briefly place on record our reasons for doing so. (Para 5)

       The concept behind allotting residential plots to the persons whose land has been acquired is to rehabilitate them and to give some relief on reasonable terms because of their having been expropriated by land acquisition proceedings. So far as the appellants are concerned, the allotment of plots cannot be said to have fulfilled the object of rehabilitating them because though they lost their land but there is no material placed on record to hold them as having been rendered destitutes on account of either their residence or their livelihood having been lost on account of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 7)

       Secondly, the allotments made even by way of compromise are out of the same land which was acquired for public purpose and out of which other allotments made were struck down by this Court in Daulat Mal Jain s case. (Para 8)

       Thirdly, a finding recorded by the Executing Court in its order dated 1.6.1990, that before the appellants took over possession over the plots allotted they had not deposited the full price as was agreed upon, was brought to our notice and the order says that the correctness of this finding was rather conceded to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants before the Executing Court. (Para 9)

       We are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of this case are enough to decline exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution to the appellants. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution on this Court is discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extra-ordinary situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice. The facts and circumstances of this case as have already been set out do not inspire the conscience of this Court to act in the aid of the appellants. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice, and the appellants too ought to feel satisfied, if monetary compensation based on the principles for assessment thereof in land acquisition cases is awarded and in addition they are given each a plot of reasonable size to rehabilitate themselves so as to meet the demands of reasonability and consistency. (Para 10)

       Held, however : For this reason the appeals are held liable to be dismissed. Still in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution two directions are warranted for doing complete justice in the case and not to leave the appellants in lurch - remediless. And those directions we hereby make. Firstly, the appeals preferred by the State Government in the Rajasthan High Court were disposed of in terms of compromise and the monetary compensation was reduced in consideration of the awardees having been allotted plots. As we are holding the compromise to be vitiated it would be in the interest of justice that the appeals filed by the State Government are restored for hearing on merits. The High Court shall hear and decide the appeals appointing the quantum of monetary compensation excluding, from its consideration, the allotment of plots to the awardees. Secondly, though the allotment of 1000 and 2000 square yards of land in Lal Kothi Scheme as a term of the compromise has been set aside by the High Court it is directed that the appellants shall be allotted each a residential plot of an area about 250 square yards in some other scheme of the JDA at the rates effective and applicable on 17.8.1971, the date on which the compromise was arrived at. Such allotment shall be made and possession given within a period of three months from today. This direction we make in order to maintain consistency and uniformity inasmuch as we find almost all the awardees having been allotted plots and similar directions were made by this Court also in Daulat Mal Jain s case (supra), vide para 31. In case of any dispute arising in the matter of allotment of plots in terms of this direction, we allow liberty to the parties to approach the High Court of Rajasthan and seek directions preferably by the same Bench which will be hearing the appeals against the award made by the Reference Court. (Para 11)

       Held also : Appellants prayer for upholding the compromise-based allotment of plots or in the alternative plots of lesser size being allotted out of the land acquired for this very scheme cannot be entertained much less allowed as that would be to some extent destructive of the purpose of acquisition. The land acquired must be used for the public purpose for which it has been acquired. (Para 12)

       Held finally : The appeals are disposed of maintaining the judgment of the High Court but subject to the two directions made hereinabove. Costs as incurred. (Para 13)