Union of India Vs. Rattan Singh & Ors  INSC 534 (12 April 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (5) 423 1996 SCALE (4)299
APPEAL NOS. 7617-50 OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.27604-37 of 1995)
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides .
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extent the respondents shall restitute the amounts withdrawn.
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.
appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.