RAMESHWAR DASS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB on 14 March 2019

190

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 190

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

A

RAMESHWAR DASS

v.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB

(Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 2019)

BMARCH 14, 2019[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14,Respondent-State acquired the total land measuring around 14.49Cacres (situated in 9 villages) for construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal– Appellant is the landowner of the land in question, located in thevillage Bhago Majra – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determinedthe compensation – Landowners including the appellant soughtreference to the Civil Court – Civil Court enhanced the rates of theDland – Landowners including the appellant filed appeal – HighCourt enhanced the compensation in view of its decision in HariSingh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – In C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/14 also, the appeals were disposedof by the High Court in view of its decision in Hari Singh’s case – InEC.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, the appeal filed was dismissed by theHigh Court upholding the order of the Civil Court – Applicationfiled inter alia for enhancing the compensation, which was dismissed– Held: In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, main order was passed bythe High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- HariSingh – Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisitionFproceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises – InHari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue ofdetermination of market rate of the acquired land situated in eachof the 9 villages, keeping in view the quality, location, and thedistance of acquired land from Chandigarh and then worked outGthe rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriatededuction/escalation, as the case may be – High Court’s approachcannot be faulted with and calls for no interference – High Courtfixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villagesincluding Bhago Majra village – No ground to further enhance thecompensation– In view of the order passed in C.A.@ SLP(C)H

No.5513/14, the C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/14 are dismissed – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, appellant entitledto the same relief as in the case of Hari Singh, but not entitled tointerest for the period 13.01.2009-01.08.2013.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 5513/14

1.1 The main order was passed by the High Court in thelead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh by which theHigh Court partly allowed the other several appeals filed by thelandowners and enhanced the compensation payable to thelandowners in relation to their land situated in 9 different villagesand, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by the Stateagainst the award of the Reference Court. Hari Singh’s case alsoarose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of whichthe present bunch of appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singhwas treated as the lead appeal by the High Court for determiningthe market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By commonjudgment, the High Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals,enhanced the rate of compensation and in consequence dismissedthe State’s appeals. In Hari Singh’s case, the High Courtthreadbare examined the issue of determination of market rateof the acquired land situated in each village (total 9) keeping inview the quality, location, and the distance of acquired landsituated in 9 villages from Chandigarh. [Paras 14-16][195-D-F]

1.2 The High Court took into account all the aspects, suchas location of each village, distance from the city of Chandigarhand its quality as was done by the LAO and then worked out therates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriatededuction/escalation, as the case may be, which varied from 10%,20% and 25% depending upon the aforementioned factors. Theaforementioned approach of the High Court also examined onperusal of the site map cannot be faulted with. It is just andproper calling for no interference. The High Court fixedappropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villagesincluding Bhago Majra village after taking into account theirlocation and the potentiality from all angles. Like the appellant, A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aall other landowners whose land is situated in village Bhago Majrahave also got the compensation at the uniform rate dependingupon the quality of three classes of land. No good ground foundto further enhance the rate of compensation than what has beenenhanced by the High Court. [Paras 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23][196-F-H; 197-B, C, FB

In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and [REDACTED].(C) No.8098 of 2014

1.3 In view of the order passed in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/C2014, these appeals are also dismissed. [Paras 3]

C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014

1.4 In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors., whichis affirmed and the compensation has been allowed to all thelandowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform rates,Dthis appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the orderdated 01.08.2013 in RFA are set aside. This appellant is alsoheld entitled to the same relief as allowed in the case of HariSingh & Ors. but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the Eperiod 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013. [Paras 3]

Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Decision dtd. 01.07.2013 of Punjab & Haryana HighCourt in RFA No.953/1994 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3024Fof 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2013 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 1943 of 1996.

WITH

GCivil Appeal Nos. 3028, 3026, 3029, 3027, 3025 of 2019.

Rohit Sharma, Anshul Chowdhary, Atul Agarwal, Rounak Nayak,O. P. Bhadani, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms.Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for theRespondent.H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 25.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana atChandigarh in R.F.A. No.1943 of 1996.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it isnecessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is a landowner of the land in question whereasthe respondent is the State of Punjab. This appeal along with otherconnected appeals arises out of determination of the compensation madeby the High Court in relation to the appellant’s land that was acquired inland acquisition proceedings.

5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), theState (respondent herein) acquired the total land measuring around 14.49acres on 29.03.1988 for execution of public purpose, namely, “constructionof Satluz-Yamuna canal”. It was followed by publication of declarationas required under Section 6 of the Act on 03.05.1988.

6. The acquired land (14.49 acres) is situated in 9 villages,namely,(1) Jandpur, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (2) Dharak Khurd,Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (3) Pamour, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala;(4) Majat, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (5) Matran, Tahsil Kharar,District Ropar; (6) Bhago Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (7)Siampur, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (8) Mataur, Tahsil Mohali,District Kharar; and (9) Manak Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar.So far as the appellant’s land is concerned, it is located in the villageBhago Majra

7. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of theAct initiated the proceedings for determination of compensation payableto the landowners of the aforementioned 9 villages. So far as the villageof Bhago Majra is concerned, by his award dated 21.08.1990, the LAOdetermined the compensation payable to the landowners in relation toclaim of land as under:

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

S.No.Class of landRate per acre aw arded by the Land Acquisition Officer1.ChahiRs.55,000/-2.BaraniRs.55,000/-3.Gair mumkinRs.40,000/-

8. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrievedby the offer made by the LAO, as mentioned above, sought reference toCthe Civil Court for re-determination of the rate of the compensation inrespect of the acquired land. In relation to the land belonging to theappellant, the Civil Court by its award dated 17.04.1996 re-determinedthe compensation and enhanced the rates of the land as under:

S.No.Class of landRate per acre awarded by the Reference Court1.ChahiRs.1,00,000/-2.BaraniRs.75,000/-3.Gair mumkinRs.55,000/- D

E

9. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrievedby the aforementioned award of the Reference Court and filed appeal inthe High Court.

10. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court,Fnone appeared for the appellant. The High Court on hearing the Statecounsel partly allowed the appeal in favour of the landowner (appellantherein) in the light of the decision rendered in RFA No. 953 of 1994,Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 01.07.2013and enhanced the rate of compensation as was determined by the HighGCourt in the case of Hari Singh (supra). The impugned order reads asunder:

“No one has appeared for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State very fairly submitted that theclaim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by H

judgment of this Court in RFA No.953 of 1994 Hari Singh& Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 1.7.2013.

For the reasons recorded in Hari Singh’s case (supra), thepresent appeal is disposed of in the same terms.”

11. It is against this order, the appellant (landowner) has feltaggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

12. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing theappeal in the light of its earlier order dated 01.07.2013 passed in HariSingh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. and other connectedappeals (supra) or in other words, whether the appellant (landowner) isentitled to claim enhancement in the rate of compensation awarded bythe High Court.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.

14. On perusal of the impugned order quoted above, it is clearthat the main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appealfiled by another landowner - Hari Singh by which the High Court partlyallowed the other several appeals filed by the landowners and hasenhanced the compensation payable to the landowners in relation totheir land situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence, has dismissedthe appeals filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court.

15. In other words, Hari Singh’s case (supra) also arose out ofthe same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch ofappeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the leadappeal by the High Court for determining the market rate of the landsituated in 9 villages. By a common judgment dated 01.07.2013, theHigh Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals, enhanced the rateof compensation and in consequence dismissed the State’s appeals.

16. In Hari Singh’s case (supra), the High Court threadbareexamined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired landsituated in each village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location, andthe distance of acquired land situated in 9 villages from Chandigarh.The High Court took note of the assessments made in relation to thelands situated at village Mehmudpur, Tehsil Sottal under the landacquisition notification dated 18.09.1985 and while providing for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aenhancement @ 10% for each year, enhanced the compensation for theacquisition in question that was made in the year 1988, for the landssituated at villages Matur, Matran, Siampur and Jandpur to Rs.2,50,000/- for Chahi with proportionate decrease for Barani and Gair Mumkinland. As regards the land situated at village Bhago Majra, the HighCourt made deduction to the extent of 20% keeping in view the natureBof the land, its quality, location and distance from the city of Chandigarhand accordingly enhanced the rate of compensation as under:

S.No.Class of landRate per acre awarded by the High Court1.ChahiRs.2,00,000/-2.BaraniRs.1,60,000/-3.Gair mumkinRs.1,20,000/- C

17. Learned counsel for the appellant (landowner), on the basisDof the map of the site in question, argued that the land situated in villageBhago Majra with which we are concerned in these appeals has morepotential as compared to the lands situated in other villages or in anyevent, according to learned counsel, it should have been made at parwith the other lands where high rate has been determined. It was urgedthat the land situated in Bhago Majra is also near to Mohali and ChandigarhEdistance-wise and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim morecompensation than what has been determined by the High Court in HariSingh’s case (supra) or at least the appellant is entitled to claim thesame compensation as has been granted to the landowners of the landwhich are situated in other villages.F

18. We find no merit in this submission. In our view, the HighCourt has taken into account all the aspects, such as location of eachvillage, distance from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was doneby the LAO and then has worked out the rates of the lands situated ineach village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the caseGmay be, which has varied from 10%, 20% and 25% depending upon theaforementioned factors.

19. In our view, the aforementioned approach of the High Courtwhich we have also examined on perusal of the site map cannot befaulted with. It is just and proper calling for no interference.

H

RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

20. The appellant failed to show that the Courts below did notconsider any material piece of evidence which had bearing over theissue in question. Likewise, the appellant was also not able to show thatthe High Court committed any fundamental error in determining the marketvalue of the land situated in 9 villages.

A

21. On the other hand, we also find that the High Court has fixedappropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages includingBhago Majra village after taking into account their location and thepotentiality from all angles.

B

22. Like the appellant, all other landowners whose land is situatedin village Bhago Majra have also got the compensation at the uniformrate depending upon the quality of three classes of land. It is clear fromthe following chart indicating the respective rates awarded by the LandAcquisition Officer, Reference Court and the High Court qua theappellant’s land:

C

S.No.Class of Rate per Rate per Rate per acre Dlandacre acre awarded by awarded by awarded by the High the Land the CourtAcquisition Reference OfficerCourt1ChahiRs.55,000/-Rs.1,00,000/-Rs.2,00,000/-2BaraniRs.55,000/-Rs.75,000/-Rs.1,60,000/-E3Gair Rs.40,000/-Rs.55,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-Mumkin

23. We are, therefore, unable to find any good ground to furtherenhance the rate of compensation than what has been enhanced by theHigh Court in the impugned order.

F

24. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, we find nomerit in this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.

8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and [REDACTED].(C) No.8098 of 2014

G

2. So far these appeals are concerned, these were also disposedof by the High Court in the light of its earlier order dated 01.07.2013passed in RFA No.953/1994 Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab H

A& Anr. (supra) except the difference being that in these appeals, theappellants (landowners) were duly represented before the High Court.

3. In view of the order passed above in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C)No.5513/2014, these appeals are also dismissed.

C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014B

2. So far this appeal is concerned, the appeal was filed anddismissed by the High Court by the order dated 13.01.2009 whereby theorder passed by the Civil Court came to be upheld. Thereafter, in theClight of the decision rendered in Hari Singh & Ors.(supra), the appellantpreferred an application for recall on 01.08.2013 with a prayer forenhancing the compensation. The said application was dismissed on20.11.2013 on the ground that the appellant neither availed of furtherremedy against the order dated 13.01.2009 nor filed application for recallimmediately thereafter.D

3. In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors.(supra),which is affirmed hereinabove and the compensation has been allowedto all the landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniformrates, this appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order datedE01.08.2013 in RFA are hereby set aside. This appellant is also held entitledto the same relief as allowed in the case of Hari Singh & Ors.(supra)but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the period 13.01.2009 to01.08.2013. The concerned authorities shall take necessary stepsimmediately for disbursing the amount of compensation in accordancewith law.F

The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.

G

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

H