- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector, Golaghat And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
An extent of 825 bighas, 2 kathas, 0 lessa of land in Village Ouguri Chapari, Golaghat District, Assam, was notified for acquisition on 22-9-1992 for the construction of Numaligarh Oil Refinery. Although a meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister resolved to pay compensation at Rs 55,000 per bigha, the Collector ultimately awarded only Rs 7,000 per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the rate to Rs 22,000 per bigha, but the High Court, by judgment dated 24-6-1998, restored the Collector’s award.
The landowner (petitioner) pursued multiple legal avenues:
- Filed SLP(C) Nos. 18020-22 of 1998 against the High Court judgment but withdrew them on 8-3-1999 to pursue Review Application No. 54 of 1998 before the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed the review on 25-8-1999.
- Filed fresh SLP(C) Nos. 18180-82 of 1999 (delayed by 399 days). The Supreme Court condoned the delay but dismissed the SLPs on 1-12-1999.
- The present Review Petitions challenge the Supreme Court’s dismissal order of 1-12-1999.
- Separately, SLP(C) No. 5417 of 2000 challenges the High Court’s dismissal of Review Application No. 54 of 1998.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court’s order dated 1-12-1999 dismissing SLP(C) Nos. 18180-82 of 1999 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
- Whether the petitioner could maintain a second set of SLPs after withdrawing the earlier set challenging the same High Court judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The State and the Company had earlier agreed in the Chief Minister’s chamber to compensate at Rs 55,000 per bigha, which represents the true market value; awarding Rs 7,000 per bigha is unjust.
- The High Court, in appeal and review, ignored documentary evidence (Exts. 6, 7, 8 and a communication dated 3-7-1999) showing higher compensations in comparable cases.
- Examples of higher awards (Rs 34,286 and Rs 41,667 per bigha) for the same project demonstrate disparity.
Respondents’ Arguments
- No illegality exists in the Supreme Court’s order sought to be reviewed; hence review is unwarranted.
- Documents relied on by the petitioner (Exts. 6, 7, 8) were neither argued before the High Court nor raised in grounds of appeal; their non-consideration cannot found a review.
- The previously agreed rate of Rs 55,000 per bigha had been discontinued from 1-1-1993 as per government decision dated 19-9-1994.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheik Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674; AIR 1975 SC 1500 | Review of a judgment is permissible only for glaring omission, patent mistake or grave error. | Cited to emphasise the restrictive scope of review jurisdiction. |
| Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389 | Reiteration of strict limits on review by the Supreme Court. | Relied upon to resist reopening of concluded matters. |
| Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167 | Finality of Supreme Court judgments and limited grounds for review. | Supports dismissal of review petitions lacking error apparent. |
| Awadh Bihari Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 Supp (4) SCC 594 | Same principle of limited review jurisdiction. | Used to underscore that finality should not be unsettled lightly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reiterated that finality of its orders cannot be disturbed except for an error apparent on the face of the record. It observed:
- The petitioner had earlier withdrawn SLP(C) Nos. 18020-22 of 1998 with liberty to pursue review in the High Court. After losing that review, he filed a second set of SLPs (Nos. 18180-82 of 1999) challenging the same High Court judgment, which were dismissed on 1-12-1999.
- Having voluntarily withdrawn the first SLPs, the petitioner was not entitled to maintain the second set; consequently, he cannot use review petitions to revive an incompetent proceeding.
- Nothing in the record disclosed a “glaring omission or patent mistake” in the order dated 1-12-1999. Non-consideration of Exts. 6-8 was irrelevant because those documents had not been pressed before the High Court or raised in grounds of appeal.
Thus, the prerequisites for invoking the Court’s limited review jurisdiction were absent.
Holding and Implications
Review Petitions Nos. 306-08 of 2000 are DISMISSED.
The Court granted leave in SLP(C) No. 5417 of 2000, dispensed with printing, and directed that the appeal be heard on the paper-book, with liberty to file additional documents within four weeks.
Implications: The dismissal maintains the finality of the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 1-12-1999 and denies the petitioner any further challenge to that ruling. Grant of leave in SLP(C) No. 5417 of 2000 allows the merits of the High Court’s review dismissal to be examined separately; no new legal precedent was set regarding compensation assessment.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.— The order of this Court dated 1-12-1999 dismissing Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18180-82 of 1999, is brought under challenge in the review petitions. And Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5417 of 2000 is filed seeking leave to appeal from the order of the High Court of Guwahati in Review Application No. 54 of 1998 passed on 25-8-1999. These cases relate to the same subject-matter and arise out of one and the same proceedings.
2. To appreciate the controversy and the contentions of the parties, a reference to the relevant facts leading to the filing of these cases would be apt.
3. An extent of 825 bighas, 2 kathas, 0 lessa of land in Village Ouguri Chapari under Mouza Morangi, Sub-Division Golaghat in the district of Golaghat (for short “the acquired land”) was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for the construction of Numaligarh Oil Refinery (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) in Notification No. RLA/210/92/27 dated 22-9-1992 which was published in the Gazette on 4-11-1992. In a meeting held in the chamber of the then Chief Minister of Assam on 25-2-1993, it was resolved that for the said compensation, inclusive of solatium, additional interest etc. at the rate of Rs 55,000 per bigha, would be paid. The Company also consented to payment of compensation at the said rate. But the process for fixing compensation for the acquired land by agreement of the parties did not materialise as the petitioner, owner of the land, did not accept the said rate. The acquisition proceedings were, therefore, continued under the Act and the Collector, Golaghat, proposed compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs 10,876 per bigha but the State Government approved Rs 7000 per bigha only. Accordingly, the Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector dated 4-7-1994, the petitioner sought reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, in LA Case No. 1 of 1996, the District Judge granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs 22,000 per bigha on 18-11-1996. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 27 of 1997 praying for further enhancement of compensation; the Company and the Collector, Golaghat, filed First Appeals Nos. 32 and 33 of 1997, respectively, challenging the enhancement of compensation by the District Judge from Rs 7000 to Rs 22,000 per bigha. The High Court by its common judgment dated 24-6-1998 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed the appeals of the respondents; in the result, the compensation awarded by the Collector, Golaghat, at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha was restored. Against that judgment of the High Court, the petitioner filed Review Application No. 54 of 1998 in the High Court. He filed Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18020-22 of 1998 also seeking leave of this Court to appeal against the said common judgment of the High Court dated 24-6-1998. On 8-3-1999 he was permitted to withdraw the special leave petitions as his review application in the High Court was pending. On 25-8-1999, the said review application was dismissed by the High Court and its order is the subject-matter of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5417 of 2000. However, against the said common judgment of the High Court dated 24-6-1998, the petitioner again filed Special Leave Petitions Nos. 18180-82 of 1999 delayed by 399 days. On 1-12-1999, this Court condoned the delay but dismissed the special leave petitions, which is the subject-matter of the review petitions.
4. Mr Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in review petitions and special leave petition, argued that in the chamber of the then Chief Minister, the Company as well as the Collector assessed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs 55,000 per bigha and that being the market value of the land, the Collector in the award ought not to have reduced compensation to Rs 7000 per bigha. In any event, the compensation enhanced by the District Judge at Rs 22,000 per bigha, being far less than the compensation resolved in the chamber of the then Chief Minister, was erroneously set aside by the High Court in appeal. In review application the High Court failed to take note of the fact that relevant documents — Exts. 6, 7 and 8 and the communication of 3-7-1999 — were not taken into consideration in the common judgment and consequently the petitioner was deprived of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs 55,000 per bigha.
5. In the written submissions of the petitioner, in the reply to the affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 1, the following are the relevant averments:
“3(c) That in LA Case No. 1 of 1996-97, Rs 34,286 (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Six) per bigha was paid to M/s Halmira Properties (Pvt) Ltd., Golaghat as compensation for the land acquired for Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.
The certified copy of the order-sheet of the award of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector, Bokakhat, in the district of Golaghat, is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.
(d) That in LA Case No. 6 of 1997-98, Rs 41,667 (Rupees Forty-One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Seven) per bigha was paid to Shri Prafulla Kakoty and others as compensation for the land acquired for Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.
The certified copy of the order-sheet of the award of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector, Bokakhat, in the district of Golaghat is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2.
(e) That even the Government of Assam had acquired government land measuring 18B-4K-14L for Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. for the purpose of construction of school at the valuation of Rs 34,286 (Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Six only) per bigha subject to payment of 100% land value as premium.”
6. Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned Attorney-General appearing for the respondents, has contended that there is nothing illegal in the order sought to be reviewed, therefore, the review petitions are liable to be dismissed; no arguments based on Exts. 6, 7 and 8 were addressed before the High Court nor was any ground taken in the memorandum of appeal in respect of the said documents, therefore, on the ground of non-consideration of those documents no review application could be maintained.
7. In the written submissions in the affidavit filed by the Director of Land, Requisition, Acquisition and Reforms, Assam, Guwahati, filed on behalf of the first respondent, para 5 reads thus:
“It is submitted that, the mutually agreed valuation of Rs 55,000 per bigha by ONGC at Sibsagar District, as stated by the petitioners has been discontinued since 1-1-1993. The Government decision to this effect, as derived in a meeting on 19-9-1994 is enclosed herewith.”
8. The law in regard to review of an order of this Court is too well settled to justify an elaborate discussion on the point. Suffice it to observe that the finality of the order of the apex court of the country should not lightly be unsettled. A review of a judgment, observed Krishna Iyer, J. in Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheik Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674, AIR 1975 SC 1500:
“May be, we were not right in refusing special leave.… A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.”
(The same view is reiterated in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389, Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167, Awadh Bihari Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 Supp (4) SCC 594.)
9. Now adverting to Review Petitions Nos. 306-08 of 2000, we find that they are devoid of any merit. It is noted above that the petitioner having earlier challenged the common judgment of the High Court dated 24-6-1998 in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18020-22 of 1998 withdrew the same with liberty to pursue Review Application No. 54 of 1998 filed in the High Court. Having lost in the High Court he again sought leave to appeal against the very same common judgment of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18180-82 of 1999 which were dismissed by this Court on 1-12-1999. Having withdrawn earlier SLPs Nos. 18020-22 of 1998, he could not have been allowed to maintain SLPs Nos. 18180-82 of 1999. He cannot, in the guise of the review petitions, be permitted to revive the incompetent special leave petitions. We are not persuaded to accept the contention that the order of this Court dated 1-12-1999 suffers from any error much less an error on the face of the record; there is absolutely no merit in the review petitions.
10. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5417 of 2000
11. Leave is granted.
12. Printing is dispensed with, the appeal to be heard on the special leave petition paper-book. Parties may file the relevant additional documents, if any, within four weeks.
Alert