INDIA, ETC. UNION OF IND v. KISHAN SINGH INGH AND OTHERS FAO No
Case Details
1 FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 206 INDIA, ETC. UNION OF IND Vs KISHAN SINGH INGH AND OTHERS FAO No.22 Date of De No.2231 of 2001(O&M) of Decision: 05.04.2025 ......Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON' ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH ESH MANUJA Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate Present: Mr. for the appellants. for th Ms. Bani Chhibber Mahajan, Advoca Ms Mr. K Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. for re dvocate with HARKESH MAN **** MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge By w allenge has been laid to an award date dated 06.06.2000 passe passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Distric District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, a reby, an application unde under Section 8 of the Requisit equisitioning and Acquisition of th of the Immovable Prope Property Act, 1952 (for short, “195 t, “1952 Act”) filed at the instance o tance of appellants-landow downers seeking determination/red ion/redetermination of market value o alue of the acquired land d land was allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring 61 ka Brief kanals 12 marlas situated in villag village Chhotepur, Tehs Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdas Gurdaspur came to be acquired b ired by appellants-UOI fo UOI for defence purposes vide J-N Notice No.1914/LRO/Reader date dated 25.05.1964 under under the 1952 Act. The appellants llants/landowners being aggrieved file ed filed an application un ion under Section 8 of the 1952 Act b Act before the Arbitrator-cum-Distri District Judge, Gurdaspur daspur; appointed by State of Punjab v 5H- njab vide notification No.11/34/82-5H 22578 dated 29.0 d 29.06.1989, seeking determination ation of compensation, which came came to be decided vide vide impugned award/decision date n dated 06.06.2000, thus by awardin warding MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) 2 market value @ R e @ Rs.150/- per marla along with s with solatium @ 30% and the statutor tatutory interest. Relevant levant paragraph No.9 thereof is extrac extracted hereunder:- 9.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, discu discussion and my findings on the abo above ssues, I accept this petition and awar issue award compensation to the applicant ant at he rate of Rs.150/- per marla as mar the r market value of the land. I also awa award solatium at the rate of 30% on the com solat compensation, so worked out of the lan e land f the same village in writ petition no.F of the no.FAO 462 of 1980 decided on 11- -11- 1998 998 in case Union of India vs. Sha Shankar Dass. The applicant is al is also awar warded interest at the rate of 9% for for the first year after taking possessio ession and a nd at the rate of 15% per annum ther thereafter, till payment. The applicant cant is also lso entitled other benefits arising due due to the amended provisions of Sectio ection 23 (1 3 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act Act. The application is accepted wi d with osts. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.1 costs. Rs.1000/- (Rs. one thousand) only. T y. The espondents shall make the payment t respo ent to the applicant within a period iod of hree months from today, failing wh three which, the recovery can be effect ffected hrough execution. The judgment be wr throu e written on stamp paper worth Rs.75 s.75/-. Mem emo of costs be prepared. File be com e completed and consigned to the reco record oom.” room 3. Aggrieved thereof, the present app Aggr appeal was filed on behalf of of the appellants-UOI UOI for setting aside of the order/awar r/award dated 06.06.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants- Lear -Union of India submits that awar t award passed by the lear he learned District Judge, Gurdaspur w spur was against law and facts and, thu nd, thus liable to be set asi set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Lear ndents submitted that in the facts an acts and circumstances of ces of the case, market value of the a f the acquired land was required to b d to be enhanced, hence t ence the appeal filed at the instance o ance of the appellants/Union of India b India be dismissed and th and the landowners be awarded com compensation in terms of decisio decision passed by the Hon he Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dila Dilawar Singh and others vs. Unio Union of India and othe others”, reported as 2010(14) SCC 3 CC 357. MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties and gone through th ugh the paper book of this of this case. I am unable to find merit merit in the present appeal. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawa The lawar Singh and others’ case (supr (supra) has uniformly as assessed the market value @ Rs @ Rs.350/- per marla relating to lan to land situated in the ou the outskirts of Pathankot especially cially pertaining to acquisition for th for the years 1964 to 197 1972 and thus, the case of responde spondents-landowners which pertains rtains to acquisition for th for the year 1964 is squarely covere covered by the said decision. Releva elevant paras 8 and 9 o d 9 of the Dilawar Singh and oth d others’ case (supra) are extracte xtracted hereunder:- 8. “That brings us to the question w ion whether the land-owners are entitl ntitled o claim any enhancement in the amo to cl amount of compensation determined ned in hese cases. In Union of India etc. v. In these . v. Inder Singh and Anr. (LPA No.191 o.1918 of 1989) and connected matters to whic of 19 which we have referred earlier the Hig e High Cour ourt has upheld the enhancement of c t of compensation to Rs.350/- per marl marla. The H he High Court was in that case dealin aling with a similar question arising o ng out f the very same acquisition process. R of the ss. Relying upon its decision in Shank anker Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1988 Singh 1988 (1) PLR 163 , a Single Bench of t of the High igh Court in Inder Singh's case (s se (supra) enhanced the compensatio sation paya ayable to the land- owners to Rs.35 Rs.350/- per marla. Five appeals we were prefe referred before the Division Bench ag h against the said order out of which tw ch two ppeals were dismissed by separate ord appe e orders of the Court while the third w rd was ismissed for non-prosecution. The r dism he result was that out of five appea ppeals hallenging the order passed by the Si chall he Single Judge awards in favour of t of the and-owners in the case of three d land ee dismissed appeals attained finali inality ntitling the land-owners respondents i entitl nts in those appeals to compensation tion @ Rs.35 s.350/- per marla. The refusal of a si f a similar relief in the remaining case cases was as not, therefore, considered just a st and equitable when there were n ere no istinguishing features to justify such a distin ch a refusal. The High Court also foun found hat the decision in Shanker Singh's ca that 's case (supra) was squarely applicab licable n the case before it on account of the p in the the proximity of the acquisitions in poi point f time. The notification in Shanker Si of tim r Singh' case (supra) was issued on 6 on 6th Marc arch, 1970 whereas that in Inder Sin r Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9 on 9th MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) 4 anuary, 1970. The amount of compensa Janu pensation determined in Shanker Singh ingh’s supra) was therefore found by the Hig (supr High Court to be relevant for award ard of ompensation in Inder Singh’s case (su comp (supra) also. 9. In the present batch of cases e ses except the case the notification f on for acqu cquisition was issued in February 1 ry 1970 which is proximate in point oint of ime to those issued in the Shanker Sin time r Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra supra). The n he notification in Union of India v. a v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal N al No. 9204/2010) was issued on 12.5.1964 9204 964 and published on 12.6.1964. Th . That part the lands in question were all acq apar l acquired for the very same purpose an se and are si re situated on the outskirts of a growin owing town like Pathankot. The growin owing non on-agriculture potential of such land lands is also not in serious dispute. T e. The High igh Court has failed to notice all th ll these aspects apparently because t se the decisi ecisions in Shankar Singh’s case and and that delivered in Inder Singh’s ca ’s case supra) were handed down subsequent (supr uent to the impugned order. Suffice it e it to say that on the material available be say t e before us we see no reason why t hy the amou mount of compensation payable to t to the landowners appellants in the these ppeals should also not be enhan appe hanced to Rs.350/- per marla wi with prop roportionate benefits towards solatiu latium and interest as awarded by t by the Arbit rbitrator and upheld by the High Cou Court in those cases and in similar oth r other ases to which we have referred in the cases n the earlier part of this order. In so f so far s Mohinder Singh’s case (supra) is c as M is concerned, the appeal has been fil n filed y the Union of India against grant of so by th t of solatium and interest. No appeal h al has een filed by the owners in that case been case for enhancement of the amount unt of ompensation. Even otherwise in the comp the absence of any cogent evidence nce to ustify any such enhancement, there is justif e is no room for directing payment of nt of a arge amount of compensation.” large 8. Thou hough no cross-appeal or cross-ob objections have been preferred o rred on behalf of the res he respondents regarding re-determi etermination of compensation qua qua the acquired land, yet in view of the peculiar facts facts and circumstances of the prese present case, this Court i ourt in its humble opinion believes lieves that it must pass an appropria ropriate order to deliver deliver complete justice by award awarding just, fair and reasonab sonable compensation as d as determined by the Hon’ble Apex e Apex Court in case of Dilawar Sing Singh MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) 5 and others’ case case (supra) while exercising powers under Order 41 Ru 41 Rule 33 CPC. Relianc eliance in this regard can be be placed upon decision rendere endered by the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in the n the case of “Pralhad vs State o ate of Maharashtra” rep ” reported as 2011(1) R.C.R.(Civil) ivil) 809, whereby it was held that th that the Appellate Court h ourt has powers to grant appropriate r priate relief even if no appeal was mad as made to a part of dec f decree. Relevant paragraph Nos.1 os.17 to 20 thereof are reproduce roduced hereunder: - “17 7. Now, the only question which r ich remains is whether the landowner wners, witho ithout filing an appeal before the the High Court from the order of t of the Refer eference Court, are entitled to the af e aforesaid benefit on the basis of the f their pplication under Order 41 Rule 33 of appli 3 of CPC. 18.. . The provision of Order 41, Rul Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enablin abling provi rovision, whereby the Appellate Court ourt is empowered to pass any decree ree or make ake any order which ought to have b ve been passed or made, and to pass ass or make ake such further or other decree o ee or order as the case may requir equire. Ther herefore, the power is very wide a de and in this enabling provision, t n, the rucial words are that the Appellate Co cruci e Court is empowered to pass any Ord Order whic hich ought to have been made as th s the case may require. The expressio ession Order ought to have been made' wou `Ord would obviously mean an Order whi which ustice of the case requires to be m justic e made. This is made clear from t m the xpression used in the said Rule by say expre saying `the court may pass such furth further r other Order as the case may require or ot uire.' This expression `case' would mea mean he justice of the case. Of course, this p the ju his power cannot be exercised ignoring ring a egal interdict or a prohibition clamped legal ped by law. 19. In fact, the ambit of this provisi vision has come up for consideration tion in several decisions of this Court. Comm sever ommenting on this power, Mulla (CP (CPC, 5th Edition, pg. 2647) observed that 15th that this Rule is modelled on Order 5 er 59, Rule ule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of t of Judicature of England, and Mul Mulla urther opined that the purpose of t furth of this rule is to do complete justi justice etween the parties. betw MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2231 of 2001 001(O&M) 6 20. In Vanarsi vs. Ramphal, AIR 2 IR 2004 SC 1989, this Court construin struing he provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of C the p of CPC held that this provision confe onfers powe owers of the widest amplitude on the the appellate court so as to do comple mplete ustice between the parties. This Cou justic Court further held that such power wer is unfet nfettered by considerations as to wha what is the subject matter of appeal eal or who ho has filed the appeal or whether the r the appeal is being dismissed, allow llowed or d r disposed of while modifying the the judgments appealed against. T st. The earned Judges held that one of the ob learn e objects in conferring such power is r is to avoid void inconsistency, inequity and ine inequality in granting reliefs and t nd the overr verriding consideration is achieving ving the ends of justice. The learn earned udges also held that the power c Judg er can be exercised subject to thr three imitations: firstly, this power cannot limita nnot be exercised to the prejudice of e of a perso erson who is not a party before the C e Court; secondly, this power cannot not be xercised in favour of a claim which ha exerc h has been given up or lost; and third hirdly, he power cannot be exercised when su the p n such part of the decree which has be s been perm ermitted to become final by a party i rty is reversed to the advantage of th of that party arty. (See para 15 at pg. 1997). It h It has also been held by this Court urt in Samundra Devi and others vs. Narend Samu rendra Kaur and others, (2008) 9 SC 9 SCC 100 (para 21) that this power under O 100 er Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC cannot not be xercised ignoring a legal interdict.” exerc 9. In view of above, considering the f In vi g the fact that the market value of th e of the land situated on t d on the outskirts of Pathankot has be has been assessed at Rs.350/- per mar marla for the acquisition isition notified in February, 1970, the 0, the present appeal is dismissed whi while awarding similar imilar compensation i.e. @ Rs.350 Rs.350/- per marla along with oth h other statutory benefits nefits in favour of the respondents-lan landowners in terms of the decisio decision rendered by the H the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar S . ar Singh and others’ case (supra). 10. 11. All pending application(s), if any, sh All p ny, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to t A co t to the respondents by the Registr Registry immediately at th y at their given addresses. April 05, 2025 Atik (HARKESH MANUJA) (HA JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Wheth Whether reportable Wheth Yes/No Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment