JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. By an order dated 3rd March, 2005, we had disposed of eight writ petitions by a common order and they are as follows:-
(i) WP (C) No. 2919-20/2005 G Jagdeep vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 584/1995 relating to Award No. 4/1985-86)
(ii) WP (C) No. 292/2005 Beg Raj vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 390/1990 relating to Award No. 4/85-86)
(iii) WP (C) No. 2930/2005 Beg Raj vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 887/1987 relating to Award No. 20/1982-83)
(iv) WP (C) No. 2936-38/2005 Anang Pal Singh vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 515/1994 relating to Award No. 4/1985-86)
(v) WP (C) No. 2933-35/2005 Anang Pal Singh vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 232/1995 relating to Award No. 16/85-86)
(vi) WP (C) No. 2939-40/2005 Jagdeep vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 544/1995 relating to Award No. 16/85-86)
(vii) WP (C) No. 2965/2005 Nahar Singh vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 71/1995 relating to Award No. 16/85-86)
(viii) WP (C) No. 2972/2005 Beg Raj vs. UOI (Concerning RFA No. 264/1995 relating to Award No. 16/85-86)
2. It will be noticed from the above that the last four writ petitions pertain to Award No. 16/85-86 while the first four are not connected with the last four. Unfortunately, this was not brought to our notice when we initially heard all the writ petitions.
3. Delhi Development Authority has now filed an application for review of the order dated 3rd March, 2005 in respect of only the last four writ petitions.
4. Land in Village Rithala, Delhi was acquired way back in 1981 and compensation was subsequently awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, as per the Awards mentioned above. The compensation was enhanced by the Additional District Judge by his judgment and order dated 16th March, 1995. The amount was further enhanced by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 4th September, 2001 (partially corrected and modified by an order dated 29th September, 2002). The principal judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 751/1994 Jas Rath vs. Union of India. This is reported as 95 (2002) DLT 605 (DB).
5. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment shows that it dealt with Award No. 4/1985-86, Award No. 20/82-83 and Award No. 1/83-84. In other words, Award No. 16/1985-86 relating to the last four writ petitions (with which we are concerned) was not the subject matter of the aforesaid decision. Unfortunately, this was also not brought to our notice when the matters were heard.
6. The Union of India preferred SLPs in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jas Rath claiming that the compensation awarded is too high. Some of the land owners have also approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation.
7. One of the issues debated before us in the review application was whether the decision in Jas Rath should be implemented or not. The admitted position is that there is no stay of the decision in Jas Rath and the Supreme Court has issued notice in some of the applications filed by the Union of India seeking interim stay of the judgment and order passed in Jas Rath.
8. In view of the facts explained above, we need not go into this issue. It is now quite clear that the four cases that we are concerned with are quite distinct from the other four cases that were dealt with and disposed of by us on 3rd March, 2005.
9. It may also be mentioned that the DDA has categorically mentioned in its review applications that it was not a party to the proceedings before the executing Court, which proceedings have been referred to in the other four writ petitions. It is also stated that the land that we are concerned with in the present writ petitions was not acquired for the benefit of the DDA. It has been stated in paragraph 11 of the review petition as follows:-
There is an error apparent on the face of the Order inasmuch as of the 8 matters disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by the common judgment, land relating to 4 matters was NOT acquired for Applicant/Respondent. Accordingly, Applicant/ Respondent had no bligation to make any payment therefore or be held responsible in respect thereof.
10. The contents of the above paragraph have not been denied by the Petitioners in these four writ petitions on the other hand, they have accepted the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the review petition. In their reply, the Petitioners have stated as follows:
That the contents of para 11 of the application as stated are misconceived. There is no direction in the judgment and order dated 3.3.2005 directing the applicant/DDA to pay compensation to the land owners qua the other 4 petitions where land was no acquired by the DDA.
11. Since there is a prima facie factual inaccuracy that has arisen in these four cases in as much as the first four writ petitions are not connected with these four writ petitions, there is no option but to allow the review petitions.
12. Under the circumstances, we recall our order dated 3rd March, 2005 in these writ petitions.
13. In respect of the decree that we are concerned with in these writ petitions, the Petitioners have not preferred any execution application. Under these circumstances, we think it would not be appropriate for us to pass any orders under Article 226 of the Constitution and we would leave it to the Petitioners to have the decree executed.
14. In view of the above, the writ petitions being WP (C) No. 2933-35/2005, WP (C) No. 2939-40/2005, WP (C) No. 2965/2005 and WP (C) No. 2972/2005 are disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to take resort to an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.