Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Union of India and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Ajaib Singh and Others – Respondents
CM No. 8308-CII of 2015, CR No. 1497 of 2013
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Land Acquisition Act - Restoration of Main Case - Sections 4, 6, 11, 18, 23, 28, 34 - The court allowed the restoration of the main case challenging an order directing the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of compensation due to the landowners. The court held that the landowners were entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including the benefit of additional amount of 12% over market value. The court also discussed the issue of interest on solatium and additional market value, citing relevant legal provisions and case law. The court concluded that the executing court was justified in directing the petitioners to release the benefit in favor of the landowners, as the determination of compensation was final and the landowners were entitled to all statutory benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The main case challenged an order directing the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of compensation due to the landowners. The land was acquired under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed by awards for land value and structure value. The landowners sought enhancement of compensation, which was granted by the court. The petitioners argued that the landowners were not entitled to certain benefits under the Act, and the court discussed the applicability of relevant legal provisions and case law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landowners were entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including the benefit of additional amount of 12% over market value. The court also held that the executing court was justified in directing the petitioners to release the benefit in favor of the landowners, as the determination of compensation was final and the landowners were entitled to all statutory benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of landowners to benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including the benefit of additional amount of 12% over market value and interest on solatium and additional market value. The court also addressed the scope of powers of the executing court in granting such benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, including Sections 4, 6, 11, 18, 23, 28, and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also relied on case law to determine the entitlement of the landowners to statutory benefits and the scope of powers of the executing court in granting such benefits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the executing court, finding that the landowners were entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and all statutory benefits.
JUDGMENT :
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-8308-CII-2015
Prayer made in this application is for seeking restoration of the main case.
From the contents made in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for non-appearance on behalf of applicant/ petitioners, thus, the same is allowed. Order dated 10.03.2015 is hereby recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken up for final hearing as well.
Main Case
1. By way of present petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Executing Court, directing the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of compensation due in favour of the land owners-respondents.
2. In the present case, land owned by the respondents was acquired vide notifications dated 08.06.1979 and 26.10.1979 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) respectively, followed by an award dated 31.03.1981 as regards the market value of the land, besides another award dated 27.05.1982, regarding structure value thereof. As per the admitted facts, possession of the land in pursuance to the acquisition proceedings was taken from the landowners on 12.06.1982.
3. Aggrieved of the abovementioned awards, respondents filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of compensation which came to be decided on 15.01.1986. Still aggrieved of the assessment, respondents approached this Court by way of filing RFA-1492-1986, which came to be decided on 08.01.2004, wherein, though the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court was maintained, however, the value of structure was enhanced by another sum of Rs.89,700/-.
4. In view of the aforesaid determination, the respondents filed execution and during its pendency, provided their calculations wherein they even claimed interest on solatium and also on the additional market value.
5. As per learned counsel, petitioner-UOI was directed to release the same in favour of respondents-landowners as ordered by the Executing Court on 08.02.2013, which has been impugned by way of present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submits that the respondents/landowners were not entitled for grant of benefit of additional amount of 12% over market value as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as the award in the present case was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.03.1981 i.e. much prior to the date of applicability of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 i.e. 30.04.1982. In support, he places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Babu Singh and Others, 1995 AIR SCW 1691 and Union of India vs. Swaran Singh and Others, AIR 1997 SC 462.
Learned counsel further submits that the land-owners could not have been held entitled for interest on the amount of solatium as well as upon the component of additional market value by the Executing Court, prior to 19.09.2001 i.e. the date when the issue of interest on solatium was finally adjudicated upon by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516. In this regard, he places reliance upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, 2006 AIR SCW 5813, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 668 and Central Govt. of India vs. Raj Devi @ Raj Kumari and Another in CA No. 4623 of 2021, decided on 05.08.2021.
7. On the other hand, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents-landowners.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the paper book as well as the law cited at the bar.
9. As regards the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding non-entitlement of the landowners of the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, I am unable to accept the same. In the present case, the land was acquired vide notifications dated 08.06.1979
The court established that solatium is a component of compensation, entitling claimants to interest on it from the date of acquisition, contrary to restrictions imposed by the High Court.
The solatium and interest amount were held to be payable under the Act of 1953, and the solatium formed a component of the compensation itself, warranting interest. The interest on solatium was held ....
The right to compensation arises on land vesting with the State, while its quantification may occur later, with interest payable until deposited.
Solatium awarded under the land acquisition statutory framework is an independent component of total compensation, distinct from market value. Review powers may be exercised to rectify manifest error....
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
