/2022 INSC 0301/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION`
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2926­2927 OF 2022
SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS            ..Appellant (S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA                                ..Respondent (S)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2928 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   07.07.2017   in   CMA   No.
23091/2017   and   order(s)   dated   12.05.2017   in   Review
Petition   Nos.   309/2008   &   310/2008,   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi,   the   original   land   owners   –
appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.  
1

2. The   present   proceedings   have   a   checkered   history.   The
facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are   as
under: ­
2.1 A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894,   was   issued   for   acquiring   land   of   the   original   land
owners   in   village   Jasola,   Delhi.   The   Land   Acquisition
Officer   declared   award   dated   29.01.1981,   awarding
compensation at Rs. 3500/­ per bigha. The reference court
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22000/­ per bigha vide
judgment   and   order   dated   03.05.1986.   Thereafter,   the
High   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   19.10.2001
enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   to   Rs.   2240/­   per
sq.   yard   relying   upon   its   own   decision   in   the   case   of   one
Bhola Nath and others Vs. Union of India. At this stage, it
is   required   to   be   noted   that   at   the   time   when   the   High
Court   enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   in   the   year
2001   relying   upon   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath
(supra), the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union
of   India   against   the   judgment   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath
(supra)   was   already   dismissed   by   this   Court   on
12.04.1999.   However,   the   SLP   filed   by   the   Delhi
2

Development   Authority   (DDA)   –   beneficiary   in   the   Bhola
Nath acquisition case came to be allowed subsequently by
this   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   08.12.2010
[ DDA   v.   Bhola   Nath   Sharma;   (2011)   2   SCC   54 ].   The
matter   was   remanded   to   the   reference   court.   On   remand,
the   reference   court   determined   the   compensation   at   Rs.
250/­   per   sq.   yard,   which   was   subsequently   enhanced   to
Rs. 2000/­ per sq. yard by the High Court vide subsequent
judgment   and   order   dated   23.03.2016.   The   SLP   against
the   subsequent   judgment   and   order   dated   23.03.2016
passed by the High Court in the case of Bhola Nath (supra)
came   to   be   dismissed   by   this   Court   vide   order   dated
06.04.2017.
2.2 Before that and at the relevant time, when the SLP in the
case   of   Bhola   Nath   (supra)   against   the   original   judgment
and   order   was   pending   before   this   Court,   the   Union   of
India   filed   the   SLP   before   this   Court   challenging   the
judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the High
Court in the  case of present  land owners, which was filed
in   the   year   2007.   There   was   a   delay   of   2316   days   in
3

preferring   the   SLP.   This   Court   dismissed   the   SLP   arising
from the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 passed by
the   High   Court   in   Regular   First   Appeal   (RFA)   No.
416/1986   and   other   allied   first   appeals.   Despite   the
dismissal   of   the   SLP   on   the   ground   of   delay,   on   the   very
ground that the decision in the case of Bhola Nath (supra)
which   was   relied   upon   while   passing   the   judgment   and
order   dated   19.10.2001   in   RFA   No.   416/1986   and   other
allied   first   appeals   and   determined   the   compensation   at
Rs.   2000/­   per   sq.   yard   was   pending,   the   Union   of   India
filed the present review application, which was also after a
period  of   six  months  of   the   dismissal  of   SLP.  As   observed
herein   above,   during   the   pendency   of   the   review
application   and   on   remand   to   the   reference   court   by   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath   (supra),   the   High   Court
again   determined  the   compensation   at   Rs.   2000/­  per   sq.
yard  vide  judgment  and order  dated 23.03.2016  and even
the   SLP   preferred   by   the   DDA   against   the   judgment   and
order   dated   23.03.2016   filed   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath
(supra)   came   to   be   dismissed   by   this   Court   vide   order
dated   06.04.2017.   By   the   impugned   ex­parte   judgment
4

and order, the High Court has allowed the review petitions
and   recalled the  judgment  and  order  dated  19.10.2001  in
RFA   No.   416/1986   and   other   allied   first   appeals,
determining   the   compensation   at   Rs.   2000/­   per   sq.   yard
relying   upon   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath
(supra), solely on the ground that the decision in the case
of  Bhola  Nath (supra), which has  been relied  upon  by   the
High   Court   while   passing   the   judgment   and   order   in   RFA
No. 416/1986 was set aside by this Court vide order dated
08.12.2010.   The   appellants   herein   having   come   to   know
about   the   impugned   order   dated   12.05.2017,   allowing
review   and   recalling   judgment   and   order   dated
19.10.2001,   immediately   preferred   a   recall   application
being   CMA   No.   23091/2017.   It   was   brought   to   the   notice
of the Division Bench that on remand again the High Court
had   enhanced   the   compensation   at   Rs.   2000/­   per   sq.
yard in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) and the SLP against
the   said   judgment   and   order   has   been   dismissed   by   the
Supreme   Court.   However,   by   the   impugned   order   dated
07.07.2017   though   the   High   Court   has   noted   that   the
aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the Court
5

when it heard and allowed the review petition, the Division
Bench  of  the   High  Court  refused  to  recall  the  order  dated
12.05.2017   allowing   Review   Petition   (R.P.)   No.   309/2008
by observing that as the appeal itself was listed before the
Roster Bench, it will be open to the original land owners –
appellants to place the above facts before the Roster Bench
for its consideration.
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   impugned   order
dated   12.05.2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   R.P.   No.
309/2008   allowing   the   said   review   application/petition
and   recalling   the   judgment   and   order   dated   19.10.2001
passed   in   RFA   No.   416/1986   and   dismissing   the   recall
application   being   CMA   No.   23091/2017   by   order   dated
07.07.2017,   the   original   land   owners   –   appellants   before
the   High   Court   in   RFA   No.   416/1986,   have   preferred   the
present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 2926 and 2927 of
2022. 
6

2.4 Similar   order   has   been   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   R.P.
No.   310/2008   in   Regular   First   Appeal   No.   453/1986,
which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 2928/2022.
3. We   have   heard   Shri   Yashraj   Singh   Deora   and   Ms.   Nidhi
Mohan   Parashar,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   respective   appellants   and   Shri   Nachiketa   Joshi,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   –
Union of India.  
4. We   have   gone   through   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Review   Petition   Nos.
309/2008   and   310/2008   in   respective   Regular   First
Appeal   Nos.   416/1986   &   453/1986.   From   the   orders
passed by the High Court allowing the review applications
and   recalling   the   earlier   judgment   and   order   dated
19.10.2001 passed in RFA Nos. 416/1986 & 453/1986, it
appears   that   the   High   Court   has   recalled   the   judgment
and   order   dated   19.10.2001   passed   in   the   aforesaid
regular   first   appeals   solely   on   the   ground   that   the
judgment   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath   (supra),   which   was
7

relied   upon   while   passing   judgment   and   order   dated
19.10.2001   in   Regular   First   Appeal   No.   416/1986   and
other   allied   first   appeals   was   set   aside   by   this   Court   vide
judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 and the matter was
remanded. However, it is required to be noted that during
the pendency of the review petitions, on remand again the
High   Court   decided   the   first   appeals   in   the   case   of   Bhola
Nath   (supra)   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   23.03.2016
and again determined the compensation at Rs. 2000/­ per
sq. yard. Even against the subsequent judgment and order
dated 23.03.2016, the SLP preferred by the DDA has been
dismissed   by   this   Court   vide   order   dated   06.04.2017.
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. Under the
8

circumstances,   and   in   view   of   the   subsequent
development,   which   was   even   pointed   out   to   the   High
Court   while   filing   the   recall   application   being   CMA   No.
23091/2017,   the   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   in
Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to
be quashed and set aside. 
4.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that earlier also
while   passing   judgment   and   order   dated   19.10.2001   and
allowing   RFA   Nos.   416/1986   and   453/1986,   enhancing
the   compensation   at   Rs.   2240/­   per   sq.   yard,   the   High
Court   relied   upon   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Bhola   Nath
(supra).   It   is   true   that   subsequently   vide   judgment   and
order  dated  08.12.2010,  the  decision  in   the  case  of  Bhola
Nath   (supra)   (First)   was   set   aside   and   the   matter   was
remanded. However, again on remand, the High Court has
enhanced   the   compensation   to   Rs.   2000/­   per   sq.   yard
and   the   said   judgment   dated   23.03.2016   in   the   case   of
Bhola   Nath   (supra)   (second)   has   been   confirmed   by   this
Court   as   the   SLP   has   been   dismissed.   Therefore,   even   if
the first appeals preferred by  the original land owners are
9

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. In any case, the cause and the reasons
on   which   the   High   Court  has   allowed   the   review   petitions
and recalled judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 in RFA
Nos. 416/1986 and 453/1986, did not exist in view of the
subsequent   development   narrated   hereinabove.   The
impugned   judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High
Court   allowing   review   petitions   hence   deserve   to   be
quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   judgment(s)   and   order(s)
passed by the High Court given in RFA Nos. 416/1986 and
453/1986 are required to be restored. 
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   all
these   appeals   are   allowed.   Impugned   judgment   and   order
dated   12.05.2017   in   R.P.   No.   309/2008   in   RFA   No.
416/1986   and   the   order   dated   07.07.2017   in   CMA   No.
10

23091/2017   in   R.P.   No.   309/2008   in   RFA   No.   416/1986
and   impugned   judgment   and   order   in   R.P.   No.   310/2008
in   RFA   No.   453/1986,   allowing   review   petition   and
recalling   judgment   and   order   dated   19.10.2001   in   RFA
Nos.   416/1986   and   453/1986,   are   hereby   quashed   and
set   aside.   Consequently,   common   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   19.10.2001   in   RFA   Nos.
416/1986 and 453/1986, are ordered to be restored. Now
the   original   claimants   shall   have   to   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   which
may  be available under  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to
be   paid   within   a   period   of   Twelve   weeks   from   today.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
April 20, 2022.
11