Supreme Court of India
JEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 826
- Decided
- 14 July 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order rejecting the review petitions and remitted the matters to the High Court to decide in accordance with the Constitution Bench observations in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India.
Summary
The appellants, landowners whose property was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claimed the amount deposited by the Collector could be appropriated at their discretion for interest, costs, solatium and principal. The Execution Court had allowed such appropriation, but the Haryana Urban Development Authority and Food Corporation of India challenged the order. The High Court, relying on Prem Nath Kapoor v. National Fertilizers, held that appropriation must follow the scheme laid down in that case and dismissed the appellants' review petitions. The appellants argued that the Constitution Bench decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, which permits appropriation of any shortfall first towards interest and costs, was not considered. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order rejecting the reviews and remitted the matters to the High Court to decide in light of the Gurpreet Singh observations. No substantive decision on the applicability of the shortfall rule was made, and the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
Issues considered
- Whether claimants in land acquisition proceedings can appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the observations in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India regarding the rule of appropriation for shortfalls modify the earlier ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor.
- Whether the High Court should have applied the Constitution Bench observations and, if not, whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 28, s. 34
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationRule of appropriationShortfallReview petitionCivil revisionSupreme CourtHigh CourtPrem Nath KapoorGurpreet Singh
Judgment
.. [2008] 10 S.C.R. 971
JEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. A
v
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4365 of 2008)
JULY 14, 2008
$
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 23, 28 and 34 - Com-
pensation - Rule of appropriation - Order of High Court in
Civil Revision as a/so Review applications that claimants not c
entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by Collector at
their discretion and appropriation and payment to be made
as per the law laid down by this Court in *Prem Nath Kapoor's
case - Ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor's case approved in Consti-
~
tution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh - Observation in
D
Constitution Bench decision "but if there is any shortfall at any
stage, rule of appropriation can be applied in respect of that
amount" - Claimant's case that this aspect of the matter not
considered by High Court - On appeal, held: Matters remit-
ted to High Court for decision in the light of the observations
in Constitution Bench decision in Gurpreat Singh. E
The lands of the appellants-landowners were ac-
quired for the benefit of Haryana. Urban Development
,. ' Authority-HUDA and Food Corporation of lndia-FCI. The
Land Acquisition Collector deposited the amount. The F
claimants filed applications before the Execution Court.
The applications were allowed holding that claimant was
entitled to get interest on the solatium and to appropriate
the amount already paid or deposited in the court firstly
towards costs, then towards interest and then towards
G
solatium and in the last towards principal amount. HUDA
and FCI challenged the order by filing Revision Petitions.
The Single Judge of the High Court relying upon the law
laid down by this Court in *Prem Nath Kapoor's case held
972 H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A that the claimants were not entitled to appropriate the
amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and
appropriation and payment would be made strictly as per
the law laid down by this Court in Prem NathKapoor's case.
Appellants filed review applications. High Court dismissed
"'"
B the applications. Hence the present appeals.
< ' ·~
Subsequently, similar issue which was decided in
Prem Nath Kapoor's case was referred to Constitution
Bench of this Court by a three"!Judge Bench and come to
be decided in **Gurpreet Singh's c~se.
c
Appellants-landowners relying on the observation in
Constitution Bench case in *Gurpreet Singh v Union of In-
dia that "but if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claim-
ant or decree-holder could apply the rule of appropria-
tion in respect of that amount, first towards interest and
D
costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree
otherwise directs", contended that the ratio in **Prem Nath
Kapobr's case on appropriation being at different stages
was justified though if at a particular stage there was a
shortfall, the awardee-decree holder would be entitled to
E appropriate the same on the general principle of appro-
priation, first towards interest then towards costs and then
towards the ·principal; anq that the High Col,lrt did. not
consider this aspect of the matter either in the civil revi-
$i.on or in the review petitions, thus, it would be fit and .. ~
F proper ·for this Court to remit the. case to the Execution
~ourt for disposal in the light of the aforesaid observa-
tions of this Court made in the Constitution Bench deci-
sion.
Respondent-State contended that although the Con-
G
stitution Bench decision had approved the Prem Nath ,.-
Kapoor's case, but in addition to that had also made cer-
tain observation and that it would be fit and proper that
the matter be remitted to the High Court for decision in
the light of the observations made by this Court in the
H
... JEEWAN DHAR JAIN THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 973
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
Constitution Bench without sending the same before the A
Executing Court, as the execution cases have already
been disposed of by the Execution Court.
.. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
B
HELD: The impugned order of the High Court reject-
ing the review petitions are set aside and the matters are
remitted back to the High Court for decision in the light of
the observations of this Court made in the Constitution
Bench decision *Gurpreet Singh v Union of India. High Court c
would consider whether the Constitution Bench decision
would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. [Para 6] [977-C,D & G]
*Prem Nath Kapoor and Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers
• Corporation of India Ltd. and and Ors. JT 1995 (9) SC 23; D
**Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 457 - re-
ferred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4365
of 2008
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18/10/2005 of
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Review
.. Application Nos. 86-C-ll of 2002, 87-C-ll of 2002, 88-C-112002,
89-C-ll of 2002, 90-C-ll of 2002, 91-C-ll of 2002, 92-C-ll of 2002
and 93-C-ll of 2002, in Civil Revision Nos. 3273 of 2001, 3275 F
of 2001, 3276 of 2001, 3277 of 2001, 3278 of 2001, 3280 of
2001, 3281 of 2001 and 3282 of 2001 respectively
Pradeep Kr. Ghosh, Sanjay Jain for the Appellants.
Govind Goel, Parbodh Kumar and S.S. Banthia for the G
.,, __ Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and or- H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A der dated 1s1n of October, 2005, passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application
No.86-Cll/2002 in Civil Revision No.3273/2001, Review Appli-
cation No. 87-Cll/2002 in CR No.3275/2001, Review Applica-
tion No. 88-Cll/2002 in CR.No.3276/2001, Review Application
B No. 89-Cll/2002 in CR No. 3277/2001, Review Application No.
90-Cll/2002 in CR No.3278/2001, Review Application No. 91-
Cll/2002 in CR No.3280/2001, Review Application No.92-Cll/
2002 in CR No.3281/2001 and Review Application No. 93-Cll/
2002 in CR No.3282/2001 by which the bunch of review gppli-
C cations filed at the instance of claimants-landowners-appellants
in the connected civil revision petitions was disposed of. A bunch
of 13 civil revision petitions was decided by the learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 251h of October, 2001. All the revi-
sion petitions were filed by the. Haryana Urban Development
D Authority, Gurgaon, for whose benefit the land belonging to the
claimants-landowners was acquired. Similarly, a bunch of 15
civil revision petitions was decided by another learned Single
Judge of the High Court which was filed by the Food Corpora-
tion of India, for whose benefit the land was acquired. In these
cases, the learned Single Judge of the High Court followed the
E proposition of law laid down in judgment dated 251h of October,
2001 passed in Review Application No. 113-Cll/2002 in CR No.
2842/2002. Vide an order dated 20th of May. 2001, the Execut-
F
ing Court allowed the application of the claimants-appellants in
Review Application No. 113-Cll/2002 in CR No. 2842/2002
holding that she was entitled to get interest on the solatium and
..
to appropriate the amount already paid or deposited in the court
firstly towards costs, then towards interest and then towards
solatium and in the last towards principal amount. The order
dated 101h of May, 2001 passed by the Executing Court was
G challenged by the Haryana Urban Development Authority be-
fore the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2842 of 2001.
Similar revision petitions were filed in other connected matters.
One of the questions that arose before the learned Single Judge
of the High Court for adjudication was as follows:-
H
JEEWAN DHAR JAIN THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 975
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
"Whether claimants/landowners do have the right to A
appropriate the amount deposited by the Land
Acquisition Collector as per their own discretion or the
same has to be paid in view of the Scheme of the Act?"
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relying upon
'""' the law laid down by this court in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor B
and Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and &
Ors. [JT 1995 (9) SC 23) held that the claimants were not en-
titled to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at
their discretion and appropriation and payment shall be made
strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in C
Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra). Accordingly, the aforesaid
question was answered in favour of the acquiring authorities
and against the claimants. The present review applications were
filed by the claimants-appellants praying for review of the afore-
said decision of the learned Single Judge qua the aforesaid o
• question. While deciding the review applications, the High Court
in the impugned order made the following observations -
"In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex
Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra) and a/so
having noticed the same in Mis. Industrial Credit and E
Development Syndicate, we are not inclined to take any
different view than the one taken by the learned Single
Judge. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has
placed specific reliance upon Prem Nath Kapoor's case
and as per law laid down by the Apex Court, no exception F
to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge can
be taken. Consequently, we hold that in the land
acquisition proceedings, the claimants cannot be allowed
to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at
their discretion and appropriation and payment has to G
be made strictly in accordance with the law laid down by
this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra). Holding
as above, the review cases were dismissed."
4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants-appellants moved this
Court and notices were issued. Subsequently, similar issue H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A which was decided in Prem Nath. Kapoor's case, namely,
Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, SLP©No.8408 of 2003 was
referred to Constitution Bench of this Court by a three-Judge and
finally the question referred before the Constitution Bench was
decided in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (8)
B SCC 457. After the above question was d~cided by the Consti~
tution Bench, the matter has now come up for hearing before us.
Mr.Ghosh learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
had drawn o.ur attention at paragraph 36 of the aforesaid Consti-
tution Bench decision at page 478, particularly the portion, namely,
c "but if there is any shc)rtfall at a(ly stag~, the claimant or decree-
holder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of
that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards
the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs." ·
- · 5. Relying on this observation, Mr.Ghosh submitted that
D the ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor's case on appropriation being •
at different stages was justified though if at a particular stage
there was a shortfall, the awardee-decree holder would be en-
titled to appropriate the same on- the general principle of ap-
propriation, first towards interest then towards costs and then
E towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated
to be towards specified heads by the judgment deb.tor while
making the deposit intimating the decree holder of his inten-
tion. Relying on this observation of this Court made in the Con-
stituUon Bench, Mr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing
F for the appellants submitted that this aspect of the matter not .. ~·
having been considered by the High Court either in the civil re-
vision case or in the. review petitions, it would be fit and proper
for this· Court to send the cases back to the Executing Court for
disposal in the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court
G made in the Constitution Bench decision as referred to herein
above. This submission of Mr.Ghosh WC!S contested by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and
he submitted that although the Constitution Bench decision had
approved the. Prem Nath Kapoor's case, but in addition to that
had also. made the observatior. it would be fit ~nd proper that
H
JEEWAN DHAR JAIN THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 977
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
the matter may be remitted back to the High Court for decision A
in the light of the observations made by this Court in the afore-
said Constitution Bench without sending the same before the
Executing Court, as the execution cases have already been dis-
posed of by the Executing Court. However, at the time of con-
sideration, the High Court shall also take into consideration the B
observations made by the Constitution Bench as noted herein
above be applicable to the present cases.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after noticing the judgment of the Constitution Bench particu-
larly the observations on which reliance was placed by the C
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the im-
pugned order be set aside and the matters may be remitted
back to the High Court for decision in the light of the observa-
tions of this Court made in the Constitution Bench decision as
• referred to herein above. Accordingly, the impugned orders of D
the High Court rejecting the review petitions are set aside and.
the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The High
Court is requested to decide the review petitions as early as
possible preferably within six months from the date of supply of
the copy of this order. It is needless to say that in the event the E
High Court feels that while deciding the review petitions, it would
be appropriate for it to take up the civil revision cases as well, it
will be open to the High Court to take up the review petitions
also along with the civil revision cases treating the orders passed
.i • by the High Court in revision as set aside. F
7. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
orders and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the arguments ad-
vanced by the parties on the question whether the Constitution
Bench decision would be applicable in the facts and circumstances G
of the case and it is kept to be taken into consideration by the High
.i.-. Court in the manner indicated above. The appee1I is thus allowed
to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search