Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 517
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Subodh Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6458 of 2024, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 29970 of 2017
Decided On : 16-05-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. B. Upadhyaya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aftab Rasheed, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. M. Z. Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mansur Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. M.A. Mansoori, Adv.* (*Additional physical appearance given in Court.)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G.(Not Present) Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Manoj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Chander, Adv. Mr. Nirbhaya S Tewari, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – There cannot be undue discrimination in payment of additional compensation.
Headnote:
Indian Railways Act, 1989 – Section 20(E)(1) – Acquisition of land – Claim for payment of additional compensation – Respondents have while they have paid additional compensation for a period of delay of 66 months to some persons who were similarly situated persons like appellant and their land was also acquired under very same award, but in case of appellant respondents have arbitrarily confined payment towards delay only to two months, instead of 84 months – Appellant cannot be treated differently and in his case respondents ought not to have confined delayed payment on awarded amount for left out portion of land to only two months – There was no reason for High Court to have relegated appellant to initiate any arbitration proceedings for determining additional compensation when order passed by this Court had clarified manner in which compensation would be calculated and paid for delay in making award for left out parcel of land – Appellant held entitled to additional compensation for left out portion of land at least @ 5% of value of award for a period spreading over 84 months. (Paras 7, 9, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against order dated 31st August, 2017, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby, Writ Petition filed by appellant praying inter-alia for issuing directions to respondents to pay additional compensation for entire land area has been disallowed.
Findings of Court:
Amount already paid by respondents towards delay, i.e. for a period of two months, shall be duly adjusted. Remaining amount shall be released by the respondents within eight weeks from today. Besides aforesaid amount, appellant shall also be entitled to simple interest on outstanding amount calculated @ 7% per annum from the date said amount became due and payable, till the same is realized.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein praying inter-alia for issuing directions to the respondents to pay additional compensation for the entire land area, subject matter of the Notification dated 12th December, 2008, issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act1 [For short the ‘Act’] 1989, at the rate higher than 5% per month and further pay interest @ 18% per annum for delay in payment from 30th March, 2011, i.e. the date on which this Court had passed an order in Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 2011 titled Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India vs. Subodh Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 100 till the actual date of payment in respect of the award dated 08th February, 2010.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents had acquired land in Village Kakrahi, Tehsil and District Auriya, Uttar Pradesh vide Notifications dated 10th June, 2008 and 16th December, 2008 issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Act. An award was declared on 08th February, 2010 only in respect of the land that the respondents required. As a result, a parcel of land admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare was left out. Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant filed a Writ Petition2 [Writ (C) No. 14945/2010] before the High Court for quashing the award dated 08th February, 2010, which was allowed vide order dated 12th May, 2010. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal3 [SLP (Civil) No. 26410 of 2010 (i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2794/2011)] before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 30th March, 2011 holding inter-alia that the acquisition in question had not lapsed and having regard to the second proviso to section 20F(2) of the Act, the land owners would be entitled to an additional compensation for the delay in making the payment in terms of the award dated 08th February, 2010, at a rate not less than 5% of the value of the award for each month of delay.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 issued a certificate in respect of the entire parcel of land in terms of the Notification dated 12th December, 2008, again leaving an area of 0.0624 Hectare as free from acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed another petition4 [Writ (C) No. 63467/2011] before the High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20th September, 2016 and the respondents were directed to provide compensation to the appellant for 0.0624 Hectare of land along with additional compensation within a period of two months.
5. On 19th November, 2016, the respondents prepared a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 2,74,56,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand) stating that the same was in respect of the compensation payable to the appellant in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 20th September, 2016. While calculating the additional compensation, the respondent no. 2 confined the same to a period of two months for the delayed period.
6. Aggrieved by the compensation offered by the respondents limiting the delay to only two months, the appellant approached the High Court by filing yet another petition5 [Writ (C) No. 39875/2017] claiming that he was entitled to compensation for a period of 84 months, which would come to Rs. 10,23,28,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Three Lakh and Twenty Eight Thousand), on which the impugned order dated 31st August, 2017, has been passed observing that the appellant ought to approach the Arbitrator for determining the additional compensation, by invoking Section 20F (1) of the Act.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy in the instant case. While they have paid additional compensation for a period of delay of 66 months to one Smt. Kamla Devi and Others, who were s
