Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad – Revisionist
Vs.
Mohd. Ahmed & another – Respondents
Civil Revision No. 21 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2018
For the Revisionist :Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present
For the Respondents:Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate, present, Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General, present
The main legal point established in the judgment is that findings recorded in a previous order, which has attained finality and was not challenged before any higher forum, cannot be contested in a civil revision. This principle upholds the finality of court decisions and prevents re-litigation of settled matters.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 - Section 28, Section 32, Section 18, Section 23(1-A) - The judgment discusses the compensation awarded to the claimant for the acquisition of land under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965. It also highlights the interpretation and application of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act in determining the interest on the compensation amount. The court's decision is influenced by the finding that only 70% of the awarded amount was released in favor of the claimant, as recorded in the order dated 13.07.2007, which attained finality.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the compensation amount awarded to the claimant for the acquisition of land by UPAEVP for a housing scheme. The claimant sought reference for enhancement of compensation, which was granted by the District Judge. The revisionist challenged the judgment in higher courts, but the appeals were dismissed. The claimant then filed an execution application for the balance amount of compensation, which was allowed by the executing court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that only 70% of the awarded amount was released in favor of the claimant, as recorded in the order dated 13.07.2007, which attained finality. Therefore, the executing court was justified in allowing the execution application for the balance 30% of the awarded amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether only 70% of the awarded amount was released in favor of the claimant, as per the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, or whether the entire awarded amount was released.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the finding recorded in the order dated 13.07.2007, which was not challenged by UPAEVP before any higher forum, had attained finality. Therefore, it was not open to UPAEVP to contend that the entire awarded amount was released in favor of the claimant.
Final Decision: The civil revision was dismissed, and the revisionist was directed to deposit the balance amount to the legal representatives of the claimant within two months.
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. By means of this civil revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (from hereinafter referred to as “UPAEVP”) has challenged the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge II, Haldwani, District Nainital in Civil Execution Case No. 2 of 2013. By the said order, execution application, filed by respondent No. 1 – Mohd. Ahmed, was allowed for the balance amount of compensation i.e. 30% of the amount in terms of the decree passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 210 of 1986,amounting to Rs.20,24,888/- (Rupees Twenty lacs twenty four thousand eight hundred and eighty eight only). It was further provided that the applicant/respondent will be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from 13.04.2011 upto the date of realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Revisionist/UPAEVP proposed to acquire 72.2 bighas land, belonging to respondent No. 1 – Mohd. Ahmed, situate within municipal limits of Gadarpur, District Nainital (now in District Udham Singh Nagar) for the purpose of developing a Housing Scheme. Consequently, a notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 was issued by the State Government on 04.10.1980 and subsequently, notification under Section 32 of the said Act was issued on 23.10.1984 and simultaneously possession of the land was also taken. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital gave his award on 08.02.1985, whereby he determined the amount of compensation, payable to Mohd. Ahmed, as Rs.5,64,385/- (Rupees Five lacs sixty four thousand three hundred & eighty five only), which was deposited on 18.02.1985. Mr. Mohd. Ahmed – claimant, dissatisfied with the award, sought reference, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned District Judge, Nainital vide judgment dated 12.09.1989 decided the reference and enhanced the amount, payable as compensation to the claimant. Operative portion of the said judgment rendered by learned District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 210 of 1986 is extracted below:-
“The petitioner Mohd. Ahmad is hereby awarded compensation for the first belt of his 72-2-0 bighas land upto a depth of 50 ft. from the main Gadarpur-Gularbhoj road at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. yard and he is awarded compensation for the remaining land of the said total 72-2-0 bighas land at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq yard.
The petitioner is also awarded additional solatium at the prescribed rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation besides he is awarded interest on the said compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The total amount of compensation worked out as aforesaid shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of delivery of possession till payment.
The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner shall, however, be deducted from the total amount awarded hereby.”
3. Revisionist challenged the judgment rendered by learned District Judge, Nainital by filing appeal before this Court, which was registered as FA No. 352 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2004 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, revisionist challenged the order passed by this Court in his appeal by filing SLP No. 4114 of 2005 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 5144 of 2005. Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said civil appeal vide judgment and order dated 13.04.2011.
4. Needless to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal in the SLP, filed by revisionist, vide order dated 16.08.2005. In that order, Hon’ble Supreme Court had provided that 70% of the total amount, awarded as compensation, may be withdrawn by the claimant. The said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP, filed by the revisionist, is extracted below:-
“Special Leave granted.
On the prayer for stay it is directed that 70%
