Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Ranjit Singh on 29 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR45
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The question of law which arises for determination in these appeals is as to whether the respondent-land owners are entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value and interest @9% for the first year from the date of their dispossession by the Land Acquisition Collector and @ 15% thereafter till the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount of compensation.
2. The facts necessary for deciding the above noted question are that a compact block of land measuring 866 kanals and 7 marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Moga Mehla Singh belonging to different owners including the respondents was acquired by the State of Punjab for setting up of Industrial Focal Point at Moga. The preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 17.2.1975 and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16.6.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector adopted belting system for assessment of the market value and awarded compensation at the following rates:-
(1) Special belt upto the depth of 40 Karmas along the G.T. Road : Rs. 27,000/- per acre.
(2) Remaining area : Rs. 14,000/- per acre. He also awarded 15% solatium.
3. 47 Land owners including the respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. By his award dated 29.5.1980, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot directed payment of compensation at the following rates:-
(1) Special belt : Rs. 36,000/- per acre.
(2) Remaining area : Rs. 18,700/- per acre.
4. The land owners filed regular first appeals in the High Court for further enhancement of the compensation. By a common judgment dated April 2, 1981, the learned Single Judge directed the payment of compensation @ Rs. 95,000/- per acre in respect of the land falling within the special belt and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for the remaining land minus the area covered by Exhibits-R.4 and R.5. Special Leave Petitions filed by the land owners were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.1.1984. Thereafter, the land owners filed applications under Sections 151 to 153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 30 of the Act for payment of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum thereafter. Similar applications were filed by the land owners of the State of Haryana whose land had been acquired by other notifications. The learned Single Judge who heard their applications referred the matter to a Division Bench. By an order dated September 12, 1985 the larger Bench accepted the plea of the land owners and directed the payment of solatium and interest in terms of the prayer made by them. The operative portion of the order passed by the Division Bench in C.M. No. 255 C-1 of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 401 of 1983, Som Nath v. State of Haryana and Anr., reads as under:-
"In the light of the above, we accept these applications and amend the respective judgments and decrees and order that instead of 15% solatium and 6% interest as awarded earlier, the claimants would be paid solatium and interest in the light of the amended Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. For clarity's sake it may be mentioned that they would be paid solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Court and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of their dispossession by the Land Acquisition Collector and at the rate of 15% thereafter till the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. These payments, however, would be subject to what has already been paid, if any, to the claimants by way of interest or solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation. We pass no order as to costs.
5. The miscellaneous applications filed by the respondents and other land owners were allowed by the Single Bench in terms of the order passed in Som Nath's case (supra). The State has challenged those orders by filing appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
6. On July 18, 1986, a Division Bench condoned the delay in filing of the appeals but dismissed the same on merit. Those orders were challenged by the State of Punjab by filing petitions for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. By an order dated July 22, 1991, their Lordships of the Supreme court remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the dispute regarding the rates of solatium and interest in the light of the decision of the Apex Court. This is how the appeals have been listed for rehearing.
7. Shri Deepak Sibal, counsel for the respondents-land owners severally criticised the conduct of the State Government by pointing out that the officers concerned have adopted discriminatory approach even in the matter of challenging the identical orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the applications filed under Sections 151 to 153-A C.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Act. He pointed out that at least in seven cases, the State Government did not file Letters Patent Appeals and the land owners have been given the benefit of solatium and interest in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge but in the cases of the respondents the LPAs as well as SLPs have been filed with a view to harass them. He submitted that the Court should dismiss these appeals with a view to avoid the possibility of passing of contradictory orders in identical cases. Shri Rupinder Khosla stated that he is not in a position to controvert the assertion made by the counsel for the respondents on the issue of non-filing of appeals in some cases because records of these appeals have not been made available to him. He, however, contested the submission of Shri Deepak Sibal that the appeals should be dismissed simply because in other cases, LPAs and SLPs were not filed by the State. He submitted that the respondents cannot take advantage of the negligence or mala fides acts of some officials of the government who manipulated the non-filing of appeals in other cases.
8. In our opinion, the learned Deputy Advocate General is right in submitting that the failure of the State to avail the remedy of appeal in other similar cases cannot be made a ground for dismissal of these appeals. He appears to be quite on the target in making a statement that appeals in similar cases may not have been filed due to the mala fides of the officials concerned but this cannot a valid ground to decline relief to the appellants in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
9. On the merits of the case, we find that the view taken by the Division Bench in Som Nath's case (supra) is wholly incompatible with the judgments of the Supreme court in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh, 1 (1994)6 S.C.C. 754; K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1989)5 S.C.C. 593; Mir Fazeelath Hussain and Ors. v. Special Duty Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, (1995)3 S.C.C. 208 and State of Haryana v. Shanti Parshad Jain and Ors., (1995)4 S.C.C., 532. In Raghubir Singh's case (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court overruled the judgments rendered by smaller Benches in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985)3 S.C.C. 737 and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, (1986)1 S.C.C. 365 and held as under:-
"There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) of Amendment Act in respect of on award made by the Collector between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30th April, 1983. The dispute is about the meaning of the words "or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award" used in Section 30(2)? Are they limited, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the Court made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, or do they include also, appeals disposed of between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the Court made before 30th April, 1982. It is significant to note that the Parliament has identified the appeal before the High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court by describing it as an appeal against any such award. The words any such award are intended to have deeper significance, and in the context in which those Words appear in Section 30(2) it is clear that they are intended to refer to awards made by the Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. In other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24th September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. It cannot be said that the words any such award only mean the award made by the Collector or Court, and carry no great limiting sense. No such words of description by way of identifying the appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court were necessary. Plainly, having regard to the existing hierarchical structure of forum contemplated in the parent Act those appellate orders could only be orders arising in appeal against the award of the Collector or of the Court.
If Parliament had intended that the benefit of enhanced solatium should be extended to all pending proceedings, it would have said so in clear language. On the contrary, the terms in which Section 30(2) is couched indicate a limited extension of the benefit. The Amendment Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date, and such retrospectivety as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act and must be discovered from the specific terms of the provision concerned. Similarly it was never intended to define the scope of the enhanced solatium on the mere accident of the disposal of a case in appeal on a certain date."
10. In the other three cases, the Apex Court followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
11. The facts of these cases show that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29.3.1976 acquired finality on 16.1.1984 with the dismissal of the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the claimants. Therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh's case (supra), the respondents are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 30 of the Act and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to give the benefit of enhanced solatium etc. cannot be upheld.
12. Hence, the appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the application filed by the respondents under Sections 151 to 153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 30 of the Act are dismissed.
13. Before parting with the case, we express our deep anguish on the manipulations made by the officials of the department resulting in grant of benefits to some of the land owners and hope that the government will take appropriate measures so that such situation is not repeated in future.