Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 303  OF 2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO. 5108 OF 2014)

A.V. SUBRAMANIAN APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Karaikal  on 24.1.1994 in L.A.O.P. No.38/1993, the Union of India approached the High Court in A.S.583 of 1994.  The said appeal was partly allowed  by  the  judgment  dated  23.02.2001,  reducing the compensation. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in SLP(C)  No.16046  of  2001,  which  was  dismissed  in limine - “Special leave petition is dismissed,” by order dated 28.09.2001.  Since, the dismissal was not on  merits,  the  appellant  filed  a  review  petition before the High Court on 20.11.2001.  When the said

1

Page 2

review petition was pending before the High Court, in a  connected  matter,  this  Court  in  Civil  Appeal No.1500 of 2004 by judgment dated 08.11.2005 titled Pattammal & Others. v.  Union of India and Another, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 63, allowed the appeal and restored  the  award  passed  by  the  Reference  Court. The appellant contended before the High Court that in view of the subsequent judgment by this Court and in view of the fact that the review petition was already pending before the High Court, the appellant should get the benefit of the judgment dated 08.11.2005 of this  Court.   It  was  not  in  dispute  that  the acquisition  in both  the cases  was pursuant  to the same notification and for the same purpose and the acquired lands were similar.  However, the High Court declined to review the judgment.  Thus, aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 4. As  rightly  submitted  by  Shri  Venkatramani, learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  Union  of India, unless the order passed by this Court in the special leave petition, which rendered in dismissal on 28.09.2001, is reviewed and unless there is also a challenge thereafter to the original order passed by the High Court dated 23.02.2001, the appellant cannot

2

Page 3

succeed. 5. We  may  not  have  any  quarrel  with  the  legal position.   However,  having  regard  to  the  factual position  that  in  a  land  acquisition  case  the claimants have received different amounts by way of compensation and that too in respect of the lands of same  nature  covered  by  the  same  notification  and acquired for the same purpose, we are of the view that all these technicalities should give way since they are procedural and which can still be cured.  We do not think that the appellant should be driven to such steps having regard to the factual position we have referred to above. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that the lis should be given a quietus.  For doing complete justice, we hold  that  the  appellant  shall  be  entitled  to  the benefit  of  the  judgment  of  this  court  dated 08.11.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.1500 of 2004.   7. In  case  the  appellant  has  already  received payments, needless to say that the obligation under the security offered before the High Court will stand discharged. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed, as above.

3

Page 4

9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of.  

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [A.M. KHANWILKAR]  

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 10, 2017.

4