- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vinod Kapur & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Judgment Summary — Review Petition (S. Ravindra Bhat, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a review application against this Court's judgment and order dated 17 December 2004, which had disposed of writ petition No. 745/86. The original writ petition challenged a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7 June 1985. The lands in question had been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on 25 November 1980. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 17 December 2004. The review petition alleged that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act but that this fact was not brought to the Court's notice at the time, and that this omission constituted sufficient cause to review the earlier dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the review petition can be entertained on the ground that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which were not brought to the Court's notice at the time of the original adjudication.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit from the declaration in Balakram Gupta v. Union of India (referred to as “Balakram-II”) on the basis that the petitioner (or predecessor) was an objector to the acquisition.
- Whether the review is barred or otherwise impermissible as belated or because the prerequisites for review (due diligence or newly discovered material evidence) have not been satisfied.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. N.S. Vashisht)
- The review petition averred that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest (Mr. R.L. Sahni) had filed an objection under Section 5A, but this fact was inadvertently omitted from the pleadings in the original writ petition; this omission caused the dismissal.
- The petitioner sought the benefit of the declaration in Balakram-II, which invalidated acquisition for non-compliance with principles of natural justice concerning hearing and disposal of objections, and argued the petitioner fell within the class of litigants entitled to relief under that declaration.
- Counsel submitted that the mistake in pleadings was inadvertent and should not result in harsh consequences to the litigant.
Respondents' Arguments
- The petitioner had a duty to support the case in all material particulars at the time the writ petition was filed and to aver any grounds available; the alleged Section 5A objection should have been raised in 1986 when the petition was filed.
- The petitioner delayed for about 18 years while proceedings were pending and only asserted the predecessor's objection after judgment was delivered; therefore the review is belated and not maintainable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Balakram Gupta v. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150 (referred to as “Balakram-II”) | Invalidation of acquisition on the ground of non-compliance with principles of natural justice in regard to hearing and disposing objections to land acquisition. | The petitioner sought to invoke Balakram-II to obtain the same declaration; the Court considered this but applied later Supreme Court rulings limiting Balakram-II's effect to the parties before that Court. |
| Balakram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 Delhi 239 (referred to as “Balakram-I”) | Clarification that the validity of the Section 4 notification did not lapse automatically after three years (Full Bench ruling). | The Court relied on Balakram-I as having resolved the doubt about the three-year lapse issue relevant to the chronology of notifications and declarations in the matter. |
| Abhay Ram v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 421 | Supreme Court ruling on the scope/effect of declarations like Balakram-II (as described in the opinion). | The Court relied on this Supreme Court ruling to hold that the declaration in Balakram-II enured only to those petitioners before that Court, not to all landowners generally. |
| Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (1999) 7 SCC 44 (referred to as “Uban-I”) | Supreme Court ruling on the effect of declarations similar to Balakram-II (as described in the opinion). | The Court cited Uban-I to support the conclusion that the declaration in Balakram-II did not operate as a judgment in rem for all similarly placed landowners. |
| Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296 (referred to as “Uban-II”) | Further Supreme Court authority on the limited operative effect of such declarations (as described in the opinion). | The Court cited Uban-II alongside other Supreme Court rulings to negate the contention that Balakram-II entitled all notified landowners to relief. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the review petition's central averment that a predecessor-in-interest had filed an objection under Section 5A which was not brought to the Court's notice earlier. The Court recorded the petitioner's reliance on Balakram-II and the submission that the omission in pleadings was inadvertent.
The Court made the following factual and legal findings (as stated in the opinion):
- The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 25 November 1980 and the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 7 June 1985.
- The petitioner admitted not to have been the owner of the lands; neither the writ petition nor the review petition disclosed when the present petitioner acquired title.
- There was no documentary evidence produced in the review petition to show that the predecessor-in-interest had in fact filed objections under Section 5A; the present petitioner did not himself file any objections under Section 5A.
- The Court recited the settled principle (as stated in the opinion) that review jurisdiction is available where, despite due diligence, material evidence or documents could not be secured earlier, or where new evidence comes to light that has material bearing on the decision.
- The Court found that neither prerequisite for review (due diligence failure or newly discovered material evidence) was satisfied; the circumstances asserted were always available to the petitioner and were not urged in the original petition or during the proceedings.
- The Court also noted the respondents' contention that the petitioner delayed for about 18 years and did not raise the asserted objection until after the judgment had been delivered.
- Given the circumscribed scope of review jurisdiction and the absence of supporting material, the Court concluded that no case for review had been made out.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The review petition is DISMISSED as being devoid of merits.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the review application is dismissed and all interim orders are vacated.
- The Court's dismissal was based on the absence of documentary evidence, lack of requisite pleadings, and failure to satisfy the established prerequisites for review jurisdiction (no showing of due diligence in securing material evidence or of newly discovered material evidence).
- The opinion does not discuss any broader precedential impact beyond applying existing authorities to the facts; no new legal principle was announced in the decision beyond the application of settled review law and cited precedents.
Petition dismissed.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.— By these proceedings, review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 17th December, 2004, in which the writ petition No. 745/86 was disposed of, has been claimed.
2. In the writ petition a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7.6.85 was questioned on various grounds. The suit lands had been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on 25.11.80 This Court had considered the averments on behalf of the petitioner and delivered final judgment dismissing the petition. The present review petition is premised on the ground that the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act which was not brought to the notice of the Court. It was contended that this circumstance amounted to sufficient cause to enable this Court to review the judgment and order dated 7.12.2004's dismissing the writ petition.
3. The relevant averment in the review petition, which is the mainstay of the entire review proceeding reads as follows:
“That the above petition came up for final disposal on 17.12.2004 along with other writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court when the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court with the other listed writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners in para 8 of the above said writ petition have wrongly mentioned that the petitioners along with other land owners within the revenue estate of village Chattarpur who were also aggrieved by the Section 4 notification, filed there objection under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, to which no personal hearing to the objectors have been afforded by the Collector and no report in respect of objections of the objector have been forwarded to the Government of India. It is necessary and in the interest of justice here to point out that the predecessor and interest i.e Mr. R.L Sahni filed his 5A objection with regard to the land in question and inadvertently at the time of filing of the above said writ petitions the same could not be highlighted which resulted in dismissal of writ petitions.”
4. Mr. N.S Vashisht, learned Counsel on the basis of the above averments submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of declaration given by this Court in the judgment dated Balakram Gupta v. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150 (referred to in the main judgment as “Balakram-II”). A Division Bench of this Court had, by that decision, invalidated the acquisition on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice in regard to hearing and disposing objections to land acquisition, so far as the petitioner/objectors were concerned.
5. Mr. N.S Vashisht, learned Counsel submitted that at the time of filing the writ petition, the relevant averment in Paragraph 8 was that no objection under Section 5A had been preferred after notification under Section 4(1) was issued. Counsel contended that this was an inadvertent omission because at that time, the predecessors in interest who had title to the suit lands, had in fact preferred objections. Counsel contended that the mistake in pleadings ought not to visit the litigant with harsh consequences and that the present petitioner was entitled to the declaration in Balakram-II as he undisputedly fell within the class of litigants legitimately entitled to be called as objectors to the acquisition.
6. The review proceeding was opposed by the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner was expected to support his case in all material particulars and aver all the grounds that should have been urged, at the time he approached the Court. If indeed the petitioner was entitled to be treated as an objector, he would have said so, in the first instance, in 1986. He chose not to do so for the period of 18 years when the proceedings were pending. He only woke up after the judgment was delivered and claimed that his predecessor was an objector in the review filed before this Court. Counsel also contended that apart from this, the review should not be entertained as it is belated.
7. The judgment of this Court disposing of the petition was rendered in a batch of cases where one of the contentions raised was that the declaration of law in Balakram-II operated as a judgment in rem, thus, entitling all land owners whose lands were notified for acquisition to relief. This Court had negatived the contention on the basis of three rulings of the Supreme Court, namely, Abhay Ram v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 421; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (1999) 7 SCC 44 (hereafter called “Uban-I”) and Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296 (hereafter called “Uban-II”). In those judgments, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the declaration as to invalidity of the notifications enured only in favour of the petitioners before the Court, in Balak Ram-II.
8. The facts of this case would disclose that the notification in question was published on 25.11.1980 Initially, the question raised was whether the validity of that period lapsed automatically after three years. That doubt was cleared by a Full Bench ruling in Balakram-I (Balakram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 Delhi 239). The respondents proceeded to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.6.1985 The petitioner admittedly was not the owner of the lands. Neither the averments in the writ petition nor in the review petition furnish any details as to when the present petitioner acquired title. Admittedly, the present petitioner did not file any objections under Section 5A; nodocumentary evidence is forthcoming in the review petition. The only basis on which relief has been claimed now is that its predecessor-in-interest had preferred an objection under Section 5A.
9. It is a well settled law that review jurisdiction is available to a litigant where he can satisfy the Court that despite due diligence he could not secure material evidence or documents which would have otherwise altered the decision of the Court. A review is also maintainable if new evidence comes to light which has material bearing on the decision. In the present case neither of these prerequisites have been satisfied. The circumstances urged in support of the claim for review are those which were always available to the petitioner. He did not choose to urge them in the petition or during the course of the proceedings.
10. In view of the highly circumscribed scope of the review proceedings, we are satisfied that no plea has been made out for exercise of such jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. All interim orders are hereby vacated.
Petition dismissed.
Alert