Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Kaur vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 September, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 27.9.2012
CWP No. 14642 of 2012
Prem Kaur ....Petitioner
vs.
Union of India and ors ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Nitish Singhi, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
M/s Sandeep Vermani and Gurvinder Singh Sidhu,
Advocates for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No. 2
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 3
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of the petitions as mentioned at foot of the present order as all these petitions raise common question of law and facts.
Petitioner(s) have claimed solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') for the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.
The Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib announced the Award on 10.5.2010, awarding Rs. 1.00 lacs per marla as compensation in respect of land situated in the Village Jalwehri Dhumi & Rs. 3.00 lacs per marla for the land situated in the Village Bara. The petitioner(s) have disputed the amount of compensation, so awarded.
However, the grievance of the petitioner(s) in the present petitions is that the petitioner(s) have not been paid any solatium under 2 Section 23(2) of Act; interest under Section 28 and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings vs. Union of India and ors, 2011(4) R.C.R (Civil) 375, wherein, it has been held that in the matter of determining compensation, the land owners cannot be deprived of solatium and interest as provided under Section 23 and 28 of the Act. The relevant extract is:
61. Thus, the essential principles that emerge from a reading of the aforementioned precedents, are :-
(a) the public purpose shall not determine the amount of compensation;
(b) it is immaterial whether land is acquired under one statute or another;
(c) different compensation cannot be granted to different land owners based upon a different public purpose;
(d) where, however, a statute denies solatium and interest to a landowner, the said statutory provision must satisfy the tests of a reasonable classification based upon an intelligible differentia and must disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
62. The question that would now merit consideration is whether the public purpose underlying the National Highways Act discloses a valid classification based upon an intelligible differentia as would enable us to hold that the provisions of the Act, do not suffer from the vice of discrimination in matters of payment of compensation vis-a-vis lands, acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
82. The expeditious constructions of Highways, the expeditious conclusion of acquisition proceedings, the reference of disputes regarding compensation to an arbitrator, the statutory power to associate private entrepreneurs and the legal ability to access private capital, in our considered opinion has no relevance to the assessment/payment of compensation. The expeditious acquisition of land can be validly achieved by resorting to the urgency provisions contained in Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned enactment merely replaces the procedure for 3 acquisition, envisaged by the Land Acquisition Act with a new procedure, stated to be expeditious, more efficient and in tune with the need for an expeditious construction of national highways, but does not disclose a distinct or peculiar public purpose as would justify the denial of solatium and other statutory benefits relating to compensation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
85. Solatium is not a largesse or a mere subsidy that the State doles out to a hapless landowner in discharge of some benevolent exercise of governmental power. Solatium is an amount, paid by the State to an unwilling land owner, for compulsory appropriation of his property. The word solatium draws its meaning from the word "solace" that is comfort money given as a statutorily recognized gesture of conciliation for compulsorily depriving a land owner of his property. The importance of "solatium" cannot be over emphasized and any departure therefrom would, in our considered opinion, be justified only where the enactment discloses a reasonable classification for treating land owners differently. Solatium forms an integral component of compensation and, therefore, can only be denied where the statute satisfies the tests of valid classification.
86. Difference in procedure would not govern rights of parties to compensation. The difference, as repeatedly emphasized herein before, must be such as would disclose a valid classification based upon an intelligible differentia and not mere differences of procedure. The public purpose must be such as cannot be achieved by resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and disclose such a distinct or peculiar object as could not be achieved under the Land Acquisition Act. We have carefully perused the Act, in our endeavour to understand the so called differentia sought to be pressed into service by counsel for the respondents and have made a concerted effort to understand their submissions but express our inability to determine any justification whether legal, factual or theoretical that would have us hold that the public purpose, underlying the amending Act constitutes a separate class and is so different from the public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act that denial of solatium and interest could be held to be based upon a valid classification and consequently a valid exercise of legislative power. We find no basis whether in the objects and reasons, in the written reply, the written submissions, as also from the assistance rendered to hold anything other than that as the 4 provisions of the Act do not provide for grant of solatium and interest, they suffer from the vice of discrimination and violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and would, therefore, be held to be ultra vires.
The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the petitioner(s) have effective and alternative remedy of seeking reference of disputes to an arbitrator in terms of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956.
We do not find any merit in the said argument raised by learned counsel for respondents. Reference is maintainable in respect of determination of market value of land acquired payable or claimed by the land owners but in respect of statutory solatium and interest, there is no dispute and in terms of the judgment of this Court, the non payment of solatium and interest is discriminatory act and not sustainable. Since, the respondents have failed to pay the statutory solatium and interest, we find that the petitioner(s) are entitled for a direction to respondents to pay such solatium and interest.
In view of the said fact and in view of the binding precedent of this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forging's case (supra), the present petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of interest and solatium in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 27.9.2012 preeti 5 1 CWP No. 14644 of 2012 Vijay Kumar vs. Union of India and ors 2 CWP No. 14646 of 2012 Bhag Singh vs. Union of India and ors 3 CWP No. 14647 of 2012 Kesar Singh vs. Union of India and ors 4 CWP No. 14648 of 2012 Meena Rani vs. Union of India and ors 5 CWP No. 14649 of 2012 Jaspal Singh vs. Union of India and ors 6 CWP No. 14651 of 2012 Tejinder Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 7 CWP No. 14652 of 2012 Balwinder Singh vs. Union of India and ors 8 CWP No. 14653 of 2012 Veena Rani vs. Union of India and ors 9 CWP No. 14654 of 2012 Baghel Singh vs. Union of India and ors 10 CWP No. 14656 of 2012 Tufail Mohamad vs. Union of India and ors 11 CWP No. 14657 of 2012 Harwinder Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 12 CWP No. 14659 of 2012 Gulam Hussain vs. Union of India and ors 13 CWP No. 14661 of 2012 Tarsem Lal vs. Union of India and ors 14 CWP No. 14662 of 2012 Baldev Singh vs. Union of India and ors 15 CWP No. 14664 of 2012 Sukhvir Singh vs. Union of India and ors 16 CWP No.14665 of 2012 Dharam Pal vs. Union of India and ors 17 CWP No. 14667 of 2012 Nirmal Singh vs. Union of India and ors 18 CWP No. 14668 of 2012 Isher Singh vs. Union of India and ors 19 CWP No. 14669 of 2012 Kulwinder Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 20 CWP No. 14670 of 2012 Harchand Singh vs. Union of India and ors 21 CWP No. 14671 of 2012 Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India and ors 22 CWP No. 14672 of 2012 Gurmail Singh vs. Union of India and ors 23 CWP No. 14673 of 2012 Pal Singh vs. Union of India and ors 24 CWP No. 14674 of 2012 Gohar Ali vs. Union of India and ors 25 CWP No. 14675 of 2012 Sadiquan @ Sdeekan vs. Union of India and ors 26 CWP No. 14676 of 2012 Paramjit Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 27 CWP No. 14677of 2012 Swaran Singh vs. Union of India and ors 28 CWP No. 14683 of 2012 Gurmeet Singh vs. Union of India and ors 29 CWP No. 14701 of 2012 Sham Singh vs. Union of India and ors 30 CWP No. 17022 of 2012 Sukhwinder Singh vs. Union of India and ors 31 CWP No. 17031 of 2012 Hardeep Singh vs. Union of India and ors 32 CWP No. 17032 of 2012 Karamjit Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 33 CWP No. 17033 of 2012 Santokh Dass vs. Union of India and ors 34 CWP No. 17034 of 2012 Malkiat Singh vs. Union of India and ors CWP No. 17040 of 2012 Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalaya Rani vs. 35 Union of India and ors 36 CWP No. 17046 of 2012 Ravinder Kaur vs. Union of India and ors 37 CWP No. 17047 of 2012 Gagandeep Singh vs. Union of India and ors 38 CWP No. 17049 of 2012 Sham Lal @ Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and ors 39 CWP No. 17050 of 2012 Manzoor Ali vs. Union of India and ors 6 40 CWP No. 17051of 2012 Harpreet Singh vs. Union of India and ors 41 CWP No. 18049 of 2012 Jagdish Chand vs. Union of India and ors 42 CWP No. 19138 of 2012 Sudesh Rani vs. Union of India and ors 43 CWP No. 14678 of 2012 Saroj Bala vs. Union of India and ors