State Of Bihar & Ors vs Soorajmull Nagarmull & Ors

The present petitions seek review of the final order dated 17.8.2015 passed by this Court in C.A.Nos.10394-96 of 2011.

While disposing of the matter, following direction was passed by this Court:

"11. In conclusion we declare that acquisition proceedings with regard to the subject lands have lapsed. The Respondent-State is directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or take any other action available to it in accordance with law within six weeks from today. The Appeals are allowed in these terms."

Thereafter, the matter engaged the attention of this Court on the issue whether the appropriate provision would be Section 30 or 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. IA Nos. 28-30/2016 moved in that behalf by present review petitioner in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.726-28/2015 were disposed of on 5.1.2017.

It is only thereafter that the present review petitions have been filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 586 days. The review petitions came up before this Court on 2.8.2017 and while issuing notice, the delay in the matter was condoned by this Court and the petitions were directed to be posted in Court for oral hearing.

We have heard Mr. Rakesh Diwedi, learned senior advocate in support of the review petitions and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Diwedi submitted that the judgment of which the review is sought, is founded on the decision of this Court in Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 (10) SCC 241 rendered by two Judges of this Court. The Judgement in Laxmi Devi in turn had stated that the principles laid down by a Bench of three Judges in Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P. reported in [1993 (4) SCC 369] were confined to the facts of that case.

Mr. Diwedi submitted that there was a disagreement between two learned judges of this Court in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in [2011 (9) SCC 354] and the matter was referred to a Bench of three Judges.

In the aforesaid situation it is submitted by Mr. Diwedi, this matter must await the disposal of said reference to a larger bench.

The issue concerning aforesaid reference order was definitely alive and present when the judgment of which review is presently sought was rendered by this Court.

Even thereafter, applications were preferred seeking directions as to whether the matter had to be considered from the stand point of Section 30 or 40 of 2013 Act. It is only after the disposal of the applications that present review petitions have been preferred.

Considering these facts, we see no reason to interfere in the present review petition. These review petitions are dismissed.