Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Bharpai vs State Of Haryana on 22 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR721
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench of this Court in the case of Jogi Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., L.P.A. No. 302 of 1996, pronounced on 29.11.1996, all the Regular First Appeals preferred by the State have been dismissed. It has already been held by the Letters Patent Bench that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 80/- per square yard for the acquisition of their land. It is admitted before me that the judgment of the Letters Patent Appeal, referred to above, is squarely covered this case and arises out of the same notification and village.
2. Consequently, the claimants herein shall also be entitled to Rs. 80/- per square yard for the acquisition of their land.
3. Despite the above relief being granted to the claimants, learned counsel for the claimants contends that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in law in granting compensation of 6% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 till the publication of the award. He contends that on the correct interpretation of Section 48 read with section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant should be entitled to get 12% compensation instead of 6%. This contention is countered by the learned Advocate General, Haryana on the ground that Letters Patent Bench has not granted such relief to the claimants, as such, the present claimants would not be entitled to the relief being claimed.
4. It may be noticed, at this stage, that Hon'ble Mr. V.K. Jhanji, while disposing of R.F.A. No. 939 of 1991 titled Rabinder Nath Katariya and Anr. v. Haryana State on 7.7.1995 has held as under:-
"... The damage so suffered by the owner is to be determined for the period during which notification under section 4 of the Act remained operational. On the date when notification under Section 4 was withdrawn, interest allowable to the claimants under Section 34 was not more than six percent. In this view of the matter, appellants are not entitled to damages more than what has been allowed to them by the learned Additional District Judge . . . ."
5. This findings of the Hon'ble Judge was not assailed in Appeal, as is clear from the memorandum of grounds as shown in RFA No. 302 of 1996 (the file of which was called for during the course of hearing). In the entire grounds, no reference has been made to this aspect of the matter. Consequently, there was no occasion before the Letters Patent Bench to grant any further relief to the appellant than the one granted in the Regular First Appeal.
6. The decree or the judgment always governs the rights and obligation between the parties to the lis, the judgment cannot be called as a judgment in rem. A party who is not impleaded as an appellant or respondent in the array of appeal, cannot be bound by the decision of the Court in that particular case, unless such decision would have settled the principle on the case before the Court, otherwise subordinate to the High Court. The bare reading of Sections 48 and 23(1-A) of the Act show that the Legislature intended to protect a landowner from being stalled of his livelihood or his property without payment of adequate compensation as expeditiously as stipulated under that law. The purpose was obviously not to permit the authorities to issue first a notification under Section 4 of the Act and then make the landowners-claimants indefinitely await for pronouncement of award and compensation for their acquired land.
7. I am unable to reconcile myself with the view taken by the learned Additional District in awarding 6% compensation in face of compensation of 12% as stipulated under the Act. The learned Additional District (Judge) ought to have applied the principle as such stipulated in the statute itself. There is no dispute before me that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued between 30th August, 1977 and 14th December, 1982. Section 23(1-A) was inserted by an amendment Act 68 of 1984. In other words the statute stood amended much prior to the pronouncement of the judgment and even adjudication of right of the parties by the learned Additional District Judge.
8. Thus, i have no hesitation in holding that in addition to the relief granted by the Letters Patent Appeal in regard to the enhancement of compensation payable for the acquired land, the present appellants-applicants would also be entitled to compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 read with Section 23(1-A) of the Act, instead of 6%, as allowed by the Ld. Judge in the impugned judgment.
9. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellants are accepted partially. They will be entitled to Rs. 80/- per square yard in addition thereto compensation at the rate of 12% per annum. However, there shall be no order as to costs.