http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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 In case the appeals are  allowed, to  that extent  the respondents shall restitute the amounts withdrawn.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.