RAMESHWAR DASS vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB STATE OF PUNJAB

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3024  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.5513 of 2014) Rameshwar Dass     ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Punjab        ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3028   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.3026   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8073 of 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.3029  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.3027  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.3025  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6261 of 2014     Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.03.14 16:52:15 IST Reason: 1 J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final judgment   and   order   dated   25.09.2013   passed   by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No.1943 of 1996. 3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow. 4. The appellant is a landowner of the land in question   whereas   the   respondent   is   the   State   of Punjab.   This   appeal   along   with   other   connected appeals   arises   out   of   determination   of   the compensation made by the High Court in relation to the   appellant’s   land   that   was   acquired   in   land acquisition proceedings.  2 5. In   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   under Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Act”),   the   State (respondent   herein)   acquired   the   total   land measuring around 14.49 acres on 29.03.1988 for execution of public purpose, namely, "construction of   Satluz­Yamuna   canal".   It   was   followed   by publication of declaration as 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 3 appellant’s land is concerned, it is located in the village Bhago Majra 7. The   Land   Acquisition   Officer   (LAO)   under Section 11 of the Act initiated the proceedings for determination   of   compensation   payable   to   the landowners of the aforementioned 9 villages.  So far as the village of Bhago Majra is concerned, by his award dated 21.08.1990, the LAO determined the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to claim of land as under: 

8. The landowners including the appellant herein felt   aggrieved   by   the   offer   made   by   the   LAO,   as mentioned   above,   sought   reference   to   the   Civil Court   for   re­determination   of   the   rate   of   the compensation in respect of the  acquired land. In 4 relation to the land belonging to the appellant, the Civil   Court   by   its   award   dated   17.04.1996   re­ determined   the   compensation   and   enhanced   the rates of the land as under: 

9. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrieved by the aforementioned award of the Reference Court and filed appeal in the High Court. 10. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court, none appeared for the appellant. The High Court on hearing the State counsel partly allowed   the   appeal   in   favour   of   the   landowner (appellant   herein)   in   the   light   of   the   decision rendered in RFA No. 953 of 1994,  Hari Singh and others   vs.   State   of   Punjab   &   Anr.   decided   on 01.07.2013 and enhanced the rate of compensation 5 as was determined by the High Court in the case of Hari Singh   (supra). The impugned order reads as under: “No one has appeared for the appellant. Learned   counsel   for   the   State   very fairly submitted that the claim made in the present   appeal   is   squarely   covered   by 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),   the   present   appeal   is disposed of in the same terms.” 11. It   is   against   this   order,   the   appellant (landowner) has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.   12. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the appeal in the   light   of   its   earlier   order   dated   01.07.2013 passed   in   Hari   Singh   and   others   vs.   State   of Punjab & Anr.  and other   connected appeals (supra) or   in   other   words,   whether   the   appellant 6 (landowner) is entitled to claim enhancement in the rate of compensation awarded by the High Court. 13. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. 14. On   perusal   of   the   impugned   order   quoted above, it is clear that the main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner ­ Hari Singh by which the High Court partly allowed the other several appeals filed by the landowners   and   has   enhanced   the   compensation payable to the landowners in relation to their land situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence, has dismissed the appeals filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court.   15. In other words,  ’  (supra) also Hari Singh s case arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the 7 lead appeal by the High Court for determining the market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By a common   judgment   dated   01.07.2013,   the   High Court   partly   allowed   the   landowners’   appeals, enhanced   the   rate   of   compensation   and   in consequence dismissed the State's appeals. 16. In   Hari Singh’s case   (supra), the High Court threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location, and   the   distance   of   acquired   land   situated   in   9 villages from Chandigarh.  The High Court took note of the assessments made in relation to the lands situated at village Mehmudpur, Tehsil Sottal under the land acquisition notification dated 18.09.1985 and   while   providing   for   enhancement   @   10%   for each   year,   enhanced   the   compensation   for   the acquisition in question that was made in the year 1988,     for   the   lands   situated   at   villages   Matur, 8 Matran, Siampur and Jandpur to Rs.2,50,000/­ for Chahi with proportionate decrease for Barani and Gair Mumkin land.  As regards the land situated at village Bhago Majra, the High Court made deduction to the extent of 20% keeping in view the nature of the land, its quality, location and distance from the city of Chandigarh and accordingly enhanced the rate of compensation as under:

17. Learned counsel for the appellant (landowner), on the  basis  of   the   map  of   the   site  in  question, argued that the land situated in village Bhago Majra with which we are concerned in these appeals has more potential as compared to the lands situated in other villages or in any event, according to learned counsel, it should have been made at par with the 9 other lands where high rate has been determined. It was urged that the land situated in Bhago Majra is also near to Mohali and Chandigarh distance­wise and,   therefore,   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   claim more compensation than what has been determined by the High Court in  Hari Singh’s case  (supra) or at least   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   claim   the   same compensation   as   has   been   granted   to   the landowners of the land which are situated in other villages. 18. We find no merit in this submission. In our view, the High Court has taken into account all the aspects, such as location of each village, distance from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was done by the LAO and then has worked out the rates of   the   lands   situated   in   each   village   after   giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may be,   which   has   varied   from   10%,   20%   and   25% depending upon the aforementioned factors. 10 19. In our view, the aforementioned approach of the High Court which we have also examined on perusal of the site map cannot be faulted with.  It is just and proper calling for no interference.   20. The appellant failed to show that the Courts below   did   not   consider   any   material   piece   of evidence   which   had   bearing   over   the   issue   in question.  Likewise, the appellant was also not able to   show   that   the   High   Court   committed   any fundamental error in determining the market value of the land situated in 9 villages.  21. On the other hand, we also find that the High Court   has   fixed   appropriate   rates   for   the   lands situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago Majra village after taking into account their location and the potentiality from all angles.  22. Like the appellant, all other landowners whose land is situated in village Bhago Majra have also got the   compensation   at   the   uniform   rate   depending 11 upon the quality of three classes of land.  It is clear from  the   following  chart indicating  the   respective rates   awarded   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer, Reference   Court   and   the   High   Court   qua     the appellant’s land:

23. We   are,   therefore,   unable   to   find   any   good ground to further enhance the rate of compensation than what has been enhanced by the High Court in the impugned order. 24. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.    12 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 C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014  1. Leave granted. 2. So far these appeals are concerned, these were also disposed of by the High Court in the light of its earlier   order   dated   01.07.2013   passed   in   RFA No.953/1994   Hari Singh and others   vs.   State of   (supra) except the difference being Punjab & Anr. that in these appeals, the appellants (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 2014 1. Leave granted. 2. So far this appeal is concerned, the appeal was filed and dismissed by the High Court by the order dated 13.01.2009 whereby the order passed by the 13 Civil Court came to be upheld.   Thereafter, in the light of the decision rendered in  Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), the appellant preferred an application for recall on 01.08.2013 with a prayer for enhancing the   compensation.     The   said   application   was dismissed on 20.11.2013 on the ground that the appellant neither availed of further remedy against the order dated 13.01.2009 nor filed application for recall immediately thereafter. 3. In view of the order passed in   Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), which is affirmed hereinabove and the compensation   has   been   allowed   to   all   the landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform   rates,   this   appellant   deserves   the   same relief. Hence, the order dated 20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order dated 01.08.2013   in   RFA   are   hereby   set   aside.   This appellant is also held entitled to the same relief as allowed in the case of    Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) 14 but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the period 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013.   The concerned authorities shall take necessary steps immediately for   disbursing   the   amount   of   compensation   in accordance with law. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.         ………...................................J.    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                     ....……..................................J.           [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; March 14, 2019. 15