Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.P.Bharucha, J.
Union Of India
Versus
Gurbachansingh
Case No. : 8502-24 of 4
Date of Decision : 12/1/94
Advocates Appeared: Garg Rajiv K. : Goswamy N.N. : Gubrele R.C. : Gujaral M.S. : Katiyar Anil : Puri P.N. : Sharma O.P. : Srivastava A.K. : Suri Sushma
Provisions of Defiance of India Act, 1971 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 25 – Claim of compensation – Acquisition of Land - Said lands were in acquired under provisions of India Act, 1975. of India Act was repealed and residual matters following upon the requisition or acquisition of land there under were brought under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the said Act - Award in respect of lands was made in 1975. While other landowners similarly placed did so respondents did not make any claim for enhancement of compensation awarded. Upon the application of other landowners the compensation was enhanced – Held, Judgment of the full bench of Punjab and Haryana High court in case was subject of an appeal before this court and the said view was reversed (Union of India - This court noted that the only point that was agitated before the full bench was that no provision had been made in Section 8(3(a) of the said Act for payment of at the rate of fifteen per cent of compensation amount to the landowner as was available under the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - There was no provision under the said Act for payment of interest at the rate of six per cent per annum as was provided under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act - There was no justification for depriving the landowner of the amount of solarium and interest simply because the land had been acquired under the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 8(3 of the said Act were discriminatory insofar as they denied landowner solarium and interest and offended the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - full bench had held, inter alia, that there was nothing under said Act to suggest that requisitioned property could not be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - Result was that the said Act left it to arbitrary and unguided discretion of the government to acquire the requisitioned land of one owner by resort to Section 7 said Act while requisitioned land of another similarly situated could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - Classification between requisitioned and non-requisitioned lands for the purpose of paying less compensation to one and more to the other was not founded on any intelligible differentia nor was there any rational nexus to the object of acquisition of property for a public purpose. The full bench, therefore, had struck down provisions of Section 8(3(a) of the said Act - This court came to the conclusion that cases of acquisition of land stood on a different footing than those where the property was subject to a prior requisition before acquisition - Comparison of acquisition under the said Act to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act seemed to be odious in view of dissimilarities between the two Acts, which the court indicated - It was true that, originally, in some cases requisition was under provisions of India Act, 1962 - Even then property could be acquired in view of Section 25 said Act - It was held after consideration of provisions of statutes and various decisions of this court, that failure to provide at fifteen per cent or interest at six per cent under Section 8(3(a) of said Act did not make it discriminatory – Appeal allowed
Judgment
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) IT is stated on affidavit filed by Respondent 50 in Special Leave Petition (C)No. 11070 of 1994 that the respondents stated below have died. Their legal representatives have not been brought on record. The special leave petitions abate insofar as these respondents are concerned: (i) Respondent 6 in Special Leave Petition (C)No. 11058 of 1994; (ii) Respondents 12, 18, 19 and 21 in Special Leave Petition (C)No. 11059 of 1994; (iii) Respondent 30 in Special Leave Petition (C)No. 11061 of 1994; (iv) Respondent 31 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11062 of 1994; (v) Respondent 33 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11064 of 1994; (vi) Respondents 15 and 17 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11.069 of 1994; (vii) Respondent 57 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11072 of 1994; (viii) Respondents 59 and 61 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11073 of 1994; and (ix) Respondent 51 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11078 of 1994.
(2) DELAY condoned. Special leave granted.
(3) THE lands belonging to the respondents at Bhatinda were requisitioned in or about the year 1972 by the Union of India, the appellant, under the provisions of the Defence of India Act, 1971, for the purpose of setting up a military cantonment. The said lands were, in the year 1975, acquired under the provisions of the Defence of India Act, 1975. The Defence of India Act was repealed and residual matters following upon the requisition or acquisition of land thereunder were brought under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The award in respect of the lands was made in 1975. While other landowners similarly placed did so, the respondents did not make any claim for enhancement of the compensation awarded. Upon the application of the other landowners the compensation was enhanced.
(4) IN 1984 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended and Section 28-A was introduced therein. So far as it is relevant, it reads thus: "28-A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. (1 Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Ss. (1 and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court."
(5) THE respondents moved the Special Land Acquisition Collector to redetermine the compensation payable to them having regard to the provisions of Section 28-A. The Collector dismissed the applications, finding that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was inapplicable to the acquisition of the said lands. The respondents filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High court impugning the order of the Collector. The writ petitions were allowed, following the decision of a full bench of the High court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. Union of India. The appeals preferred by the Union of India against the orders of the learned Single Judge were dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and on merits, having regard to the said full bench decision.
(6) THE judgment of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Hari Krishan Khosla case was the subject of an appeal before this court and the said view was reversed (Union of India v, Hari Krishan Khosla). This court noted that the only point that was agitated before the full bench was that no provision had been made in Section 8(3(a) of the said Act for payment of solatium at the rate of fiftee
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
