A.V. Subramanian v. Union of India and Anr.
Background
The appellant's land was acquired, and he was awarded compensation by a Reference Court in 1994, which the Union of India got reduced on appeal by the High Court in 2001. His Special Leave Petition against that reduction was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine (without going into merits) in 2001, so he filed a review petition before the High Court. While that review was pending, the Supreme Court decided a connected case (Pattammal v. Union of India, 2005) involving the same land-acquisition notification and similar land, restoring the higher compensation for those claimants, but the High Court still refused to review its earlier order in the appellant's case.
Decision Breakdown
The Union of India argued technically that the appellant could not benefit from the Pattammal judgment without first getting the earlier in-limine dismissal of his SLP reviewed. The Supreme Court agreed with the legal technicality in the abstract, but held that since claimants under the very same acquisition notification, for the same purpose, with similarly-situated land, had received different compensation amounts purely due to procedural happenstance, "technicalities should give way" to do complete justice. It therefore held the appellant entitled to the same benefit as the Pattammal claimants, set aside the High Court's order, and allowed the appeal (clarifying that if compensation had already been paid, the security furnished before the High Court would stand discharged).
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court can look past procedural technicalities to ensure that similarly situated people affected by the very same government action (here, one land acquisition notification) are not left with unequal outcomes purely because of how their individual cases wound through the appellate process.