Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd February, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
1. Satinder Singh (In C. As. Nos. 396 to 398 of 1959)2. Umrao Singh (In C. As. Nos. 419 to 421 of 1959) and 3. Sardarni Gurdial Kaur (In C. A. No. 152 of 1960), Appellants.
Versus
1. Umrao Singh and another (In C. As. Nos. 396 to 398 of 1959)2. The State of Punjab and another (In C. As. Nos. 419 to 421 of 1959) and 3. The State of Punjab and others (In C. A. No. 152 of 1960). Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 396 to 398 and 419 to 421 of 1959 and 152 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him),for Appellant (in C. As. Nos. 396 to 398) and Respondent No. 2(in C. As. Nos. 419 to 421 of 59 and 152 of 60): Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (in C. As. Nos. 419 to 421 of 59), Respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 396 to 398 of 59) and Respondent No. 3 (in C. A. No. 152 of 60); Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate for Appellant (in C. A. No. 152 of 60); M/s. Gopal Singh and D. Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 (in C. As. Nos. 396 to 398 of 59) and Respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 419 to 421 of 59 and 152 of 60).
LAND ACQUISITION - Compensation - Apportionment - Principles - Equitable considerations - Interest on compensation - Whether payable.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Punjab acquired land in the Ambala District for the construction of the new Capital for East Punjab. The land was part of a Jagir known as "Singh Purian" and comprised the areas of villages Mataur, Dhirpur, Saneta and Giddarpur. The estate was being managed by the Court of Wards. The compensation amount was assessed by the estate officer and was accordingly offered by the State Government to the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards agreed to the amount of compensation thus offered and Amrao Singh himself did not object to it. Satinder Singh, however, was not willing to accept the said compensation and he raised several objections contending that it was wholly inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the property acquired originally formed part of Cis Sutlej States and that in regard to the said States the rule is now well-settled that the Jagirs large or small in Cis Sutlej States are non-transferable and are even exempt from attachment as political pensions, the holder for the time being having only life interest in the estate, the corpus of which is to be kept intact so that it may pass from heir to heir and lapse in favour of the Government in the absence of any legal heir.
Issues: 1. Whether the property acquired originally formed part of Cis Sutlej States? 2. Whether the holder of the property had only a limited interest in it and had no right to alienate it? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to contest the amount of compensation and was also entitled to claim a share in the distribution of the amount? 4. Whether the Sardarni was entitled to retain the possession of the village for her maintenance under a compromise decree? 5. Whether the compensation amount should be divided between the appellant and respondent 1 half and half? 6. Whether the increase in the amount of compensation directed by the arbitrators should be paid to the appellant exclusively? 7. Whether the amount of compensation awarded should carry a reasonable rate of interest from the date of acquisition when the claimants lost possession of their properties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The property acquired originally formed part of Cis Sutlej States and the holder of the property had only a limited interest in it and had no right to alienate it. 2. The appellant was entitled to contest the amount of compensation and was also entitled to claim a share in the distribution of the amount. 3. The Sardarni was entitled to retain the possession of the village for her maintenance under a compromise decree. 4. The compensation amount should be divided between the appellant and respondent 1 half and half. 5. The increase in the amount of compensation directed by the arbitrators should not be paid to the appellant exclusively. 6. The amount of compensation awarded should carry a reasonable rate of interest from the date of acquisition when the claimants lost possession of their properties.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands in Mataur, Saneta and Giddarpur may be divided half and half between the appellant and respondent 1 and that interest should be paid on all the items of compensation determined by the High Court at 4% per annum. The interest in regard to the compensation payable for Dhirpur lands should be paid to the Sardarani, whereas the interest in regard to the lands in the three other villages should be paid half and half to the appellant and respondent 1.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This is a group of seven appeals all of which arise from the same land acquisition proceedings in respect of which the Punjab Government originally issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on March 23, 1948. By this notification the State Government declared its intention to acquire land in the Ambala District for the construction of the new Capital for East Punjab. No action was, however, taken in pursuance of this notification, Meanwhile the Punjab Legislature passed the East Punjab Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act 48 of 1948. Under the provisions of this Act the Government requisitioned the land in question for the purpose of resettling the persons who were likely to be evicted from their lands as a result of the construction of the new Capital. The said land was actually acquired on May 20, 1951. This land forms part of a Jagir known as "Singh Purian" and comprises the areas of villages Mataur, Dhirpur, Saneta and Giddarpur in the District of Ambala. It appears that these villages originally formed part of the area covered by the Cis Sutlej States. S. Amrao Singh was entered as owner of the land thus acquired. His wife is Sardarani Gurdial Kaur and his son is Satinder Singh. The estate of Amrao Singh was at the relevant time being managed by the Court of Wards. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act compensation was assessed by the estate officer and was accordingly offered by the State Government to the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards agreed to the amount of compensation thus offered and Amrao Singh himself did not object to it. Satinder Singh, however, was not willing to accept the said compensation and he raised several objections contending that it was wholly inadequate. He also objected to the compensation being paid either to the Court of Wards or to his father Amrao Singh, and in support of this contention he urged that since the estate once formed part of Cis Sutlej States Amrao Singh was entitled only to its usufruct for his life and had no right to alienate or otherwise deal with its corpus. Satinder Singh s plea was that after the amount of compensation was finally determined it should be deposited in Government Securities or alternatively a part of it should be paid to him as compensation for the land of his reversionary rights. This plea applied to the three villages of Mataur, Sanata and Giddarpur. In regard to the Village of Dhirpur Amrao Singh s wife Sardarani Gurdial Kaur claimed that she was in possession of the said village as it was charged for the payment of her maintenance by a compromise decree passed in her favour and against her husband Amrao Singh, She therefore claimed for herself the entire amount of compensation. Thus the contest about the apportionment of the compensation amount took a triangular form.
2. At this stage it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the statute under which the present proceedings have been taken. In 1948 the relevant Punjab statute was East Punjab Act 48 of 1948. Section 2 of the said Act deals with the requisitioning of property and S. 3 empowers the State Government to acquire requisitioned properties. Section 5 prescribes the principles according to which compensation had to be paid in regard to acquired properties. Section 5 (e) provides that the arbitrator, in making his award, shall have regard to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), so far as the same can be made applicable.
3. This Act was followed by the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1951 (President s Act No. 2 of 1951). By S. 5 of this Act 5 of the earlier Act was amended, inter alia, by adding one provision. This provision provides that where any property is acquired in connection with the new Capital of the State of Punjab compensation may be paid whether by agreement or by award of the arbitrator, either in money
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
