PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: RATTAN SINGH & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (5) 423 1996 SCALE (4)299 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7617-50 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.27604-37 of 1995)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
By order dated December 4, 1995, this Court had issued
notice and directed interim stay of the execution of the
awards, subject to the condition that the appellant would
pay 50% of the enhanced compensation. We are informed by
Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that
the order has been complied with. On the other hand, it is
contended for the respondents that the deposit 50% of the
amount was not in terms of the decree of the reference
Court. Be it as it may, the appellant is directed to deposit
50% of the enhanced compensation as awarded under Section 26
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the decree and award
which is the subject matter of the present appeals. The
respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security. The withdrawal of 50% of the amount
will be subject to the result in the appeal. In case the
appeals are allowed, to that extent the respondents shall
restitute the amounts withdrawn.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on December
4, 1995, an enquiry was held into the allegation made by the
respondents in their counter affidavit, in particular by one
Mr. B.S. Hans S/o Rattan Singh that one B.K. Mehta, dealing
clerk of the Defence Estate Office, Gopinath Bazar
approached the Claimants and asked them to pay 2% commission
promising that the decretal amount will be deposited one
R.K. Sharma, Director, Defence Estate, Western Command,
Chandigarh came to be appointed as an Enquiry Office. In his
report dated December 26, 1995 in paragraph 28, he came to
the conclusion that there is no evidence in regard to the
allegation made by the Hans and members of the Bar. On going
through the report submitted by him, we are at a loss to
understand his conclusion in the face of the material placed
before him. However, Mr. Goswami informed us that a regular
enquiry has been ordered and it would be conducted in this
matter. It is needless to say that the report submitted by
R.K. Sharma is not even worthy of salt to look at and was
not stemmed with a sense of responsibility but with a zeal
to shield the corrupt and the reasons are not far to seek
and ex facie eloquent. The Enquiry Officer should
independently go into and conduct the enquiry and take
appropriate action and submit the report to this Court on
the final action taken in that matter.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.