Supreme Court of India
HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC. on 23 September 2022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 4 S.C.R. 874
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022)
BSEPTEMBER 23, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of – Held:While determining the compensation by the impugned commonjudgment and order/s, the High Court relied upon its earlier decisionsCin 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 landownersDis enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in C.A.arising out of RFA No.1614 of 2000 and by Rs. 2,00,000/- per acrein remaining Civil Appeals – Further, original landowners shall beentitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhancedamount of compensation – However, they shall not be entitled toany statutory benefits including the interest under the Act from theEdate of respective judgments and orders passed by the High Courttill the filing of the appeals in 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 inFCivil 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 & AnotherGDecision of High Court dtd. 28.01.2010 in RFA No.2348/1998 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2012 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No. 3941-3949,3952, 3953, 4485 of 2007 and 1448, 2871, 3974 of 2008.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6743, 6734-6739 of 2022
Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushal, DineshVerma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh Pillania,Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Diwan Singh Chauhan, Nischal Kumar Neeraj,Amit Kumar Saroha, Ravindra Bana, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja, Kanishak Bunderwal,Ashok K. Mahajan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi Dhankhar, Advs. for theRespondents.
The 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. As common question of law and facts arise in these group ofappeals, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by thiscommon judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012 / 02.03.2009 / 09.11.2009passed in the respective first appeals, the particulars of which are asunder:- A
B
C
D
E
Sl. Particulars RFA No. Date of Order Section 4 No. Notification date 1.Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3941/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 FPunjab 2.Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3942/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab 3.Ajaib Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3943/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 4.Gian Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3944/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 GPunjab and Anr. 5.Amirk Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3945/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 6.Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3946/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 7.Bakhtaur Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3947/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. H
G
H
determining the compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in respectivefirst appeals, except RFA No. 1614 of 2000, the original claimants/Hlandowners have preferred the present appeals.
2.1 In RFA No.1614 of 2000, the High Court has awarded thecompensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determiningthe amount of compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in the respectivefirst appeals, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in thecase of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/2006 decided on 2.3.2009). So far as Civil Appeal arising out of RFANo. 1614 of 2000 is concerned, the High Court has determined the amountof compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre alongwith solatium relyingupon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh Vs. The State ofPunjab & Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010).
4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the HighCourt in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra)were the subject matter of appeals before this Court. In the case ofKapoor Singh (supra) and other allied first appeals, this Court hasenhanced the amount of compensation by a further sum ofRs.1,00,000/- and in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the same hasbeen enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, payable bythe Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with interest and solatiumas prescribed by the Statute from the date of the orders passed by theHigh Court (vide common order dated 15.01.2014 passed in CivilAppeal Nos. 738-748/2014 – Kapoor Singh Vs. State of Punjab &Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – Surjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).
5. It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appealsare also similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determiningthe compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, theHigh Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of SurjitSingh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra) respectively. Therefore, thepresent appeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the decisionof this Court in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh(supra), by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum ofRs.2,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre respectively. However,there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, wedeem it appropriate to deny the statutory benefits including interest onthe enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment/sand order/s passed by the High Court till the present appeals (specialleave petitions) have been preferred before this Court.
A
B
C
D
E
FG
H
A6. In view of the above facts, all these appeals are partly allowed.Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payable to thelandowners by a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appealarising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 dated 28.01.2010. We enhance theamount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum ofRs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals arising out of impugnedBcommon judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012/02.03.2009/09.11.2009. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall be entitledto solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount ofcompensation. It is also further ordered that the original landowners/claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including theCinterest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of respectivejudgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court till the filing of theappeals in this Court. The enhanced amount of compensation shall bedeposited by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority withinthree months from today before the Reference Court.
D7. 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.
E
Divya Pandey
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
Appeals disposed of.
F
G
H