Supreme Court of India
JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC on 26 August 2022
JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5337-5434 of 2022)AUGUST 26, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement of – Held:While determining the compensation by the impugned commonjudgment and order/s, the High Court relied upon its earlier decisionsin the cases of Surjit Singh & Kapoor Singh – Aforesaid decisions ofthe High Court were the subject matter of appeals before SupremeCourt wherein the compensation was further enhanced –Landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated –Accordingly, the amount of compensation payable to the landownersis enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in all the appeals where theHigh Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of KapoorSingh – In Civil appeal arising out of the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court passed in RFA No. 4975/2010 inwhich the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in thecase of Surjit Singh, the amount of compensation payable to thelandowners is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre – Further, originallandowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under thestatute on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date oforders passed by the High Court – However, they shall not be entitledto interest from the date of the orders passed by the High Court tillfiling of the appeals before Supreme Court.
Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. andSurjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. Commonorder of Supreme Court dtd. 15.01.2014 passed inCivil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 and Civil Appeal No.363/2013 – relied on.
Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Decision ofHigh Court dtd. 2.3.2009 in RFA No. 3004/2006;Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab & AnotherDecision of High Court dtd. 28.01.2010 in RFA No.2348/1998 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5337-5434 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2010 in RFAsNos.1612, 1616, 1618, 2319, 2632, 2669 of 2000, 277, 280, 317, 327, 328,1307, 1309, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1316, 1377, 1379, 1452, 1719, 1983, 1984,B2133, 2137, 2150, 2154, 2159, 2182, 2183, 2221, 2224, 2225, 2226, 2280,2315, 2957, 2958, 3352, 3412, 3555, 4158, 4249, 4311, 4628, 5164, 5784of 2001, 338, 666, 816, 1370, 2872, 3257, 3259, 3265, 3294, 4201 of 2002,2426, 4550 of 2003, 2932 of 2005, 1828 of 2007,1298, 1302, 1424 of2009, dated 18.05.2010 in RFAs No.1434, 4648 of 2001, 3603 of 2002,2427, 2666 of 2003, 2490 of 2004, 501 of 2005, 3447 of 2006, datedC07.03.2012 in RFAs Nos.5138, 5139, 5590, 5591, 5597, 5715, 5733, 5787of 2001, 205, 207, 933, 1936, 2492, 2550, 4194 of 2002, 1054, 1079, 1470,1472, 1546, 2480, 2787, 3279, 4258 of 2003, dated 12.08.2013 in RFAsNo.2948 of 2007 and dated 02.08.2013 in RFA No.4975 of 2010 of theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
DVinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushal, K. S. Rekhi,Subhasish Bhowmick, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advs. for theRespondents.
EThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment(s) and order(s) dated 28.01.2010/18.05.2010/07.03.2012 passedin the respective first appeals, dated 12.08.2013 in RFA No. 2948/2007Fand dated 2.8.2013 passed in RFA No. 4975/2010, the particulars ofwhich are as under, G
H
JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJABAND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
76SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.ABCDEFGH
JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJABAND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Adetermining/awarding the compensation for the acquired lands in questionat Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre, the original landowners have preferred thepresent appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determiningthe amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre in the respectiveBfirst appeals except RFA No. 4975/2010, the High Court has relied uponits earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab& Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010). So far asCivil Appeal arising out of impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court dated 2.8.2013 in RFA No. 4975/2010 is concerned, theHigh Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre,Crelying upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh v. State ofPunjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/2006 decided on 2.3.2009).
3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the HighCourt in the cases of Kapoor Singh (supra) & Surjit Singh (supra)were the subject matter of appeals before this Court and in the case ofDKapoor Singh (supra) and other allied first appeals, this Court hasenhanced the amount of compensation by a further amount ofRs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in the case of Surjit Singh(supra), payable by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authoritywith interest and solatium as prescribed under the Statute from the dateEof the orders passed by the High Court (vide common order dated15.01.2014 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 – KapoorSingh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No.363/2013 – Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).
4. It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appealsFare similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determining thecompensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the HighCourt has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of Kapoor Singh(supra) & Surjit Singh (supra) respectively. Therefore, the presentappeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the decision ofthis Court in the cases of Kapoor Singh (supra) & Surjit Singh (supra),Gby enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum ofRs.1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre respectively. However,there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, wedeem it appropriate to deny the interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation from the date of the judgment and order/s passed by the H
High Court till the present appeals (special leave petitions) are preferredbefore this Court.
5. In view of the undisputed facts, all these appeals are partlyallowed. Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payableto the landowners to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in all these appeals wherethe High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of KapoorSingh (supra) except Civil appeal arising out of the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court passed in RFA No. 4975/2010 inwhich the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case ofSurjit Singh (supra). We enhance the amount of compensation payableto the landowners to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal arising outof the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in RFANo. 4975/2010. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall beentitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhancedamount of compensation from the date of orders passed by the HighCourt. However, the original landowners – claimants shall not be entitledto interest from the date of the orders passed by the High Court till filingof the appeals before this Court. The enhanced amount of compensationshall be deposited by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authoritywithin three months from today before the Reference Court.
6. All these appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaidterms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shallbe no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeals disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H