Supreme Court Restores Land Compensation: Ram Chander vs. Union of India (20 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court recall its judgment based on a precedent that was initially overruled but later restored? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex issue in a land acquisition case, focusing on whether a review of a judgment was justified when the precedent it relied upon was temporarily set aside but later reinstated. This case highlights the intricacies of judicial review and the importance of finality in legal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquired in Jasola, Delhi, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The initial compensation awarded to the landowners was deemed insufficient, leading to a series of appeals and reviews. The core issue arose when the High Court relied on a specific case, Bhola Nath, to enhance the compensation, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court, leading to a review of the High Court’s decision. However, the Bhola Nath case was eventually restored, creating a complex legal situation.

The original land owners, the appellants, sought enhanced compensation for their land acquired by the Union of India. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded a meager sum, which was subsequently increased by the reference court. The High Court further enhanced the compensation relying on the Bhola Nath case. However, the Supreme Court set aside the Bhola Nath case, leading to a review of the High Court’s decision in the present case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially enhanced the compensation based on the Bhola Nath case. However, the Supreme Court set aside the Bhola Nath judgment, leading the Union of India to file a review petition against the High Court’s order in the present case. The High Court, in turn, recalled its earlier order, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. The High Court initially allowed the review petition, recalling its judgment dated 19.10.2001, solely on the ground that the Bhola Nath case was set aside by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court refused to recall its order allowing the review petition, stating that the matter could be placed before the Roster Bench.

Legal Framework

This case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal issue revolves around the principle of judicial review and the effect of a precedent being overturned and then restored. The case also touches upon the principles of res judicata and the finality of judgments.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in recalling its judgment based on the initial setting aside of the Bhola Nath case by the Supreme Court, because the Bhola Nath case was subsequently restored on remand by the High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the said order.
• They contended that the High Court should not have reviewed its judgment as the basis for the review no longer existed.
• They highlighted that the High Court, on remand in the Bhola Nath case, had again determined the compensation at Rs. 2000 per sq. yard, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP against this subsequent order.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, Union of India, argued that the High Court was correct in reviewing its judgment as the precedent it relied upon, i.e., the Bhola Nath case, was initially set aside by the Supreme Court.
• They contended that the review was necessary to rectify the error caused by relying on a judgment that was not valid at the time of review.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the High Court should not have reviewed its judgment because the precedent it relied upon was ultimately restored, making the review unnecessary and causing injustice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in recalling its judgment dated 19.10.2001 in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986 based on the ground that the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath (supra), which was relied upon, was set aside by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2010, when on remand the High Court had again decided the matter and the SLP against the said order was also dismissed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court initially relied on the *Bhola Nath case* [High Court of Delhi] for enhancing compensation.
• The Supreme Court noted that its own judgment in *DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma; (2011) 2 SCC 54* [Supreme Court of India] had set aside the initial Bhola Nath judgment, leading to a remand.
• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court on remand in *Bhola Nath and others Vs. Union of India* [High Court of Delhi] had again determined the compensation at Rs. 2000 per sq. yard, and the SLP against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court’s decision to review its earlier judgment was based on a temporary setback to the Bhola Nath case. When the Bhola Nath case was restored, the grounds for review no longer existed. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the subsequent developments before recalling its judgment. The Supreme Court also noted that the same compensation amount was ultimately upheld in the Bhola Nath case, making the review exercise futile.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court concluded that the High Court’s review was not justified given the subsequent restoration of the Bhola Nath case. The final decision was reached by considering the entire timeline of events and the fact that the same compensation amount was ultimately upheld.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to review its earlier judgment was incorrect. The court noted that the review was based on the setting aside of the Bhola Nath case, but the case was later restored on remand. The court emphasized that the High Court should have considered this subsequent development before recalling its judgment. The Supreme Court stated that the review was an exercise in futility because the same compensation amount was ultimately upheld in the Bhola Nath case.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The High Court’s review was based on the setting aside of the Bhola Nath case, which was later restored.
• The High Court failed to consider the subsequent restoration of the Bhola Nath case.
• The review was a futile exercise as the same compensation amount was ultimately upheld.

“Therefore, when review applications/petitions were allowed on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuant to the decision of this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (supra) dated 08.12.2010, the first appeals are remanded and pending, in fact there was already a decision on remand vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP was dismissed.”

“Therefore, the ground on which the High Court had allowed the review applications was thereafter not available.”

“Therefore, even if the first appeals preferred by the original land owners are heard again pursuant to the impugned order passed by the High Court in the review petitions, recalling judgment and order dated 19.10.2001, in that case also again the court will have to consider and rely upon the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) (second), which was earlier also relied upon. Therefore, the same will be nothing but an exercise in futility.”

Key Takeaways

• A review of a judgment is not justified if the grounds for review cease to exist due to subsequent developments.
• Courts must consider the entire timeline of events and not just isolated incidents.
• The principle of finality of judgments should be upheld unless there are compelling reasons to review them.
• The decision highlights the importance of considering subsequent developments in judicial proceedings.
• It underscores the need for courts to avoid futile exercises and ensure that justice is not delayed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the original claimants shall be paid the compensation determined pursuant to the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986 along with all other statutory benefits within a period of twelve weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review of a judgment is not justified if the grounds for review cease to exist due to subsequent developments. This case clarifies that courts must consider the entire timeline of events and not just isolated incidents when deciding on a review petition. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders that had recalled its earlier judgment. The Supreme Court restored the High Court’s original judgment, ensuring that the land owners receive the enhanced compensation as initially determined. This decision underscores the importance of considering the entire history of a case and the futility of reviews based on temporary setbacks in related cases.