Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Rajinder Kumar Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 14025 of 2018
Decided On : 18-11-2022
A review petition requires clear grounds for reconsideration, which were not met in this case due to lack of evidence regarding prior compensation determination.
Headnote:(A) Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 - Review application - Grounds for review - Concealment of facts regarding determination of compensation and prior suit not disclosed by petitioners - Court reiterated that mere internal communication not sufficient to establish prior determination of compensation - Review petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 9)
(B) Legal principles regarding the requirements for seeking a review - The review must clearly show grounds for reconsideration; mere assertion of new findings is inadequate if prior decisions are not sufficiently challenged. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Review petition filed by the Land and Building Department against prior order to appoint an Arbitrator, asserting failure of petitioners to reveal determined compensation for acquired land and prior related suit.
Findings of Court:
No grounds for review established; correspondence cited does not demonstrate any compensatory determination communicated to the petitioners, nor does it warrant reversing previous order.
Issues: Whether the petitioners concealed facts leading to original writ order; whether prior compensation determination was formally communicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioners failed to prove that the compensation was determined and communicated, thus maintaining the validity of the original order.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition related to land compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument regarding nullity due to non-disclosure. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on communication and compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of review petition due to lack of grounds. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
REVIEW PET. 307/2022 & CM APPL. 49652/2022, CM APPL. 49653/2022
1. This review petition has been filed by the Land and Building Department, Government of NCT OF Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Review Applicant') seeking review of the order dated 21.01.2020, whereby the review petitioner was directed to notify the appointment of an Arbitrator within a period of eight weeks under the provisions of Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "1948 Act").
2. The ground on which the review has been sought is that the petitioners in the writ petition failed to disclose to this Court that the compensation for the acquired land already stood determined. It was also not disclosed that the predecessors of the petitioner had filed a suit, being Suit No.94/1955, for Declaration and Injunction. The said suit was dismissed, where- after they challenged the dismissal order in appeal, including Regular Second Appeal, as also an LPA. It is only thereafter, that the earlier writ petition, being WP(C) No.2685/1993, was filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the Notification bywhich the land had been acquired. They however, concealed the above facts from this Court. By an order dated 19.04.1996, this Court directed appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1948 Act.
3. The learned counsel for the review applicant submits that as this order has been obtained by concealing the factum of the compensation having already been determined as also the earlier suit filed, and the review applicant was not made party to the earlier writ petition, the same cannot bind on the review applicant, and is a nullity. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant. The present petition was filed by the petitioner complaining that in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 19.04.1996, the review applicant had appointed an Arbitrator, who withdrew from the proceedings, forcing the petitioner to file another petition, being Civil Writ Petition No.4548/2012. The said petition was directed to be treated as a representation. As the Arbitrator was still not appointed, the present petition was filed.
5. In reply to the writ petition, the review applicant filed its counter affidavit on 14.01.2020. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that steps were being taken for appointment of a new Arbitrator. Taking into account the stand of the review petitioner, this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 disposed of the writ petition, directing the review applicant to appoint a new Arbitrator within a period of eight weeks. The petitioners herein filed a contempt petition alleging that the Arbitrator was still not appointed, at which stage, the review applicant appointed an Arbitrator. Thereafter, some of the claimants to the land filed an application seeking review of the order, claiming that the proceedings should in fact to be carried out under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the said review petition also the review applicant was duly represented. The said review petition was disposed of by a detailed decision dated 19.05.2022 of this Court. It is only thereafter that the present review petition has been filed.
6. In support of the plea that the compensation already stood determined, the learned counsel for the review applicant has drawn my attention to a communication dated 26.08.1
