Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Kumari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 March, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 15097 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 13.3.2012
(1) CWP No. 15097 of 2011
Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Kumari and ors ......Petitioners
vs.
Union of India and ors .....Respondents
Present: - Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurmail Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No. 4 (2) CWP No. 2589 of 2012 Bhago Devi and another ......Petitioners vs. Union of India and ors .....Respondents Present: - Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurmail Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 3.
(3) CWP No. 496 of 2012 Mewa Singh ......Petitioner
vs.
Union of India and ors .....Respondents
Present: - Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Gurmail Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 3.
(4) CWP No. 3529 of 2012 Harsaroop Mann ......Petitioner
CWP No. 15097 of 2011 -2-
vs.
Union of India and ors .....Respondents
Present: - Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurmail Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab for respondents No. 2 Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No. 3 CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Hemant Gupta, J This order shall dispose of above mentioned four writ petitions as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases.
Petitioners 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 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rupnagar, exercising the powers of Competent Authority has announced the Award on 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) awarding Rs. 80.00 lacs per acre as compensation. The petitioners have disputed the amount of compensation, so awarded, in terms of the statutory provisions before the Arbitrator. However, the grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the petitioners have not been paid any solatium under Section 23(2) of Act; interest under Section 28 and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 CWP No. 15097 of 2011 -3- 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 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 CWP No. 15097 of 2011 -4- 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 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.
In the face of the said judgment, the learned counsel for CWP No. 15097 of 2011 -5- respondent No. 1 argued that the petitioners 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. 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 petitioners are entitled for directing the 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 pay interest and solatium in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 13.3.2012 preeti