'Nobody Can Take Benefit Of Mistake Of Court' : Supreme Court Refuses To Rely On 'Inadvertent' Order Enhancing Compensation
The Supreme Court has observed that a party cannot take benefit of an inadvertent mistake committed by a court while passing an order.A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was hearing an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for lands acquired by the NOIDA authority pursuant to a notification issued in 1976. The appellants had placed reliance on a 2014 judgment of the...
The Supreme Court has observed that a party cannot take benefit of an inadvertent mistake committed by a court while passing an order.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was hearing an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for lands acquired by the NOIDA authority pursuant to a notification issued in 1976.
The appellants had placed reliance on a 2014 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case Mangu v State of UP. In the said case, the High Court had passed a common judgment to dispose of a batch of appeals, which were predominantly relating to land acquisitions which took place in 1992. However, one of the appeals related to an acquisition of 1977, which got 'inadvertently' tagged with the other appeals relating to the 1992 acquisitions. As the High Court had passed a common order for enhancement, the land value of the 1977 acquisition also got 'mechanically' enhanced, along with the 1992 acquisitions.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants placed reliance on this enhancement granted by the High Court for the 1977 case
However, the Supreme Court noted that the case pertaining to the 1977 acquisition got inadvertently tagged with the other batch of cases pertaining to 1992 acquisition. Nobody pointed out this fact to the High Court. Therefore, the High Court "mechanically" enhanced the compensation for all cases, without noticing the presence of the case relating to 1977 acquisition in the batch of appeals.
"...as such it was a mistake on the part of the High Court in not noticing the difference with regard to the acquisition of the years 1977 and 1991", the Supreme Court noted.
The Court said that the appellants cannot take advantage of the mistake on the part of the High Court.
"Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistake either of the Court or of any party, which mistake has occurred inadvertently and without noticing the peculiar facts. As such it was the duty of the Advocate for the claimants to point out the correct facts.", the Supreme Court held.
The Court further noted that the NOIDA authority has filed a review petition after noticing this mistake, and the said review petition is pending adjudication. In this backdrop, the Supreme Court refused to accept the appellants' arguments based on the HC judgment.
Value given for subsequent acquisition cannot be considered
The Supreme Court also observed that while determining the market value of land, the compensation awarded to another land which was acquired subsequently cannot be taken in to consideration.
"As per the settled proposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all", the judgment authored by Justice Shah stated.
The appellants placed reliance on the compensation awarded to lands acquired in 1983 to argue that the market value for their lands were not properly determined. The bench rejected this argument noting that the compensation awarded for subsequent acquisition cannot be taken into account.
"As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had taken place and even the development plan has been sanctioned at the time when the land was acquired in the year 1983, therefore, the aforesaid request cannot be accepted", the Court observed.Case Title : Ajai Pal Singh and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Coram : Justice MR Shah & Justice AS Bopanna
Citation : LL 2021 SC 501
Click here to read/download the judgment