SUBODH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

           [2024] 6 S.C.R. 708 : 2024 INSC 458

                      Subodh Singh
                             v.
                 Union of India and Others
                (Civil Appeal No. 6458 of 2024)
                           16 May 2024
    [Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for
the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award
for a period spreading over 84 months.

                            Headnotes
Compensation – Additional compensation for the left out
portion of land – Payment towards the delay only to two
months – Appellant claimed payments towards delay of 84
months – Correctness:
Held: Respondents had acquired a land by Notifications issued u/s.
20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 – An award was declared
on 08.02.2010 in respect of land that respondent acquired – A parcel
of land admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare was left out – The High Court
vide order dated 20.09.2016 directed the respondents to provide
compensation to the appellant for 0.0624 Hectare of land, which
was left out, along with additional compensation – While calculating
the additional compensation, respondent confined the same to a
period of two months for delayed period – Appellant claimed that he
was entitled to compensation for a period of 84 months and relied
on one Kamla Devi & Ors. – This Court noted that an order dated
18.09.2017, passed by the Competent Authority refers to an order
dated 19.07.2017, passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition filed by
Kamla Devi and others and goes on to record that after completion
of formalities of publication, some portion of the land admeasuring
0.0890 Hectare had been left out, as the same was not required for
the subject project – Subsequently, another award was declared in
respect of the left out area and additional compensation was paid
to the land owners @ 5% per month of the award for a period of 66
months, i.e. from 19.04.2012 to 12.09.2017 – In light of the above,
the appellant herein cannot be treated differently in his case, the
respondents ought not to have confined the delayed payment on the
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                            709

               Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others


     awarded amount for the left out portion of land to only two months –
     Thus, the appellant is held entitled to additional compensation for
     the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award
     for a period spreading over 84 months. [Paras 3, 4, 9, 12]

                              Case Law Cited
     Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh
     [2011] 3 SCR 1160 : (2011) 11 SCC 100 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Indian Railways Act, 1989.

                             List of Keywords
     Compensation; Additional compensation; Award; Delay in payment;
     Payment of additional compensation; Additional compensation for
     left out portion of land.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6458 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No. 39875 of 2017
                         Appearances for Parties
     S. B. Upadhyaya, Sr. Adv., Aftab Rasheed, Aftab Ali Khan, M. Z.
     Chaudhary, Mansur Ali Khan, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, M.A. Mansoori,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
     K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Amrish Kumar, Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Udupa,
     Manoj Mishra, Chitvan Singhal, Padmesh Mishra, Saurabh Mishra,
     Shrimay Mishra, Abhinav Pandey, Rakesh Chander, Nirbhaya S
     Tewari, Advs. for the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August,
     2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
     at Allahabad whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein
     praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents to pay
710                                                                  [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                              Digital Supreme Court Reports


       additional compensation for the entire land area, subject matter of
       the Notification dated 12th December, 2008, issued under Section
       20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act1, 1989, at the rate higher than 5%
       per month and further pay interest @ 18% per annum for delay in
       payment from 30th March, 2011, i.e. the date on which this Court had
       passed an order in Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 20112 titled “Dedicated
       Freight Corridor Corporation of India Vs. Subodh Singh”, till the actual
       date of payment in respect of the award dated 08th February, 2010.
3.     It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents
       had acquired land in Village Kakrahi, Tehsil and District Auriya,
       Uttar Pradesh vide Notifications dated 10th June, 2008 and 16th
       December, 2008 issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Act. An
       award was declared on 08th February, 2010 only in respect of the
       land that the respondents required. As a result, a parcel of land
       admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare was left out. Aggrieved by the said
       action, the appellant filed a Writ Petition3 before the High Court for
       quashing the award dated 08th February, 2010, which was allowed
       vide order dated 12th May, 2010. Challenging the said order, the
       respondents filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal4 before this
       Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 30th March, 2011
       holding inter alia that the acquisition in question had not lapsed and
       having regard to the second proviso to section 20F(2) of the Act,
       the land owners would be entitled to an additional compensation
       for the delay in making the payment in terms of the award dated
       08th February, 2010, at a rate not less than 5% of the value of the
       award for each month of delay.
4.     Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 issued a
       certificate in respect of the entire parcel of land in terms of the
       Notification dated 12th December, 2008, again leaving an area of
       0.0624 Hectare as free from acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved
       by the said decision, the appellant filed another petition5 before the
       High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20th September,
       2016 and the respondents were directed to provide compensation


1    For short the ‘Act’
2    [2011] 3 SCR 1160 : (2011) 11 SCC 100
3    Writ C. No. 14945/2010
4    SLP(Civil) No. 26410 of 2010 (i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2794/2011)
5    Writ C. No. 63467/2011
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                        711

                   Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others


      to the appellant for 0.0624 Hectare of land along with additional
      compensation within a period of two months.
5.    On 19th November, 2016, the respondents prepared a bank draft for
      a sum of ₹ 2,74,56,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Four Lakh
      Fifty Six Thousand) stating that the same was in respect of the
      compensation payable to the appellant in terms of the order passed
      by the High Court on 20th September, 2016. While calculating the
      additional compensation, the respondent no.2 confined the same to
      a period of two months for the delayed period.
6.    Aggrieved by the compensation offered by the respondents limiting
      the delay to only two months, the appellant approached the High
      Court by filing yet another petition6 claiming that he was entitled
      to compensation for a period of 84 months, which would come to
      Rs.10,23,28,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Three Lakh and
      Twenty Eight Thousand), on which the impugned order dated 31st
      August, 2017, has been passed observing that the appellant ought to
      approach the Arbitrator for determining the additional compensation,
      by invoking Section 20F (1) of the Act.
7.    It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents
      have adopted a pick and choose policy in the instant case. While
      they have paid additional compensation for a period of delay of 66
      months to one Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors., who were similarly situated
      persons like the appellant and their land was also acquired under
      the very same award, in the case of the appellant the respondents
      have arbitrarily confined the payment towards the delay only to two
      months, instead of 84 months.
8.    We have perused the record and heard the arguments advanced
      by learned counsel for the parties.
9.    At the outset, we may note that the order dated 18th September,
      2017, passed by the Competent Authority refers to an order dated
      19th July, 2017, passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition7 filed by
      Kamla Devi and others and goes on to record that after completion
      of formalities of publication, some portion of the land admeasuring
      0.0890 Hectare had been left out, as the same was not required for


6    Writ C No. 39875/2017
7    WP No. 65267 of 2012
712                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the subject project. Subsequently, another award8 was declared in
       respect of the left out area and additional compensation was paid
       to the land owners @ 5% per month of the award for a period of
       66 months, i.e. from 19th April, 2012 to 12th September, 2017. In the
       light of the above, the appellant herein is justified in arguing that he
       cannot be treated differently and in his case, the respondents ought
       not to have confined the delayed payment on the awarded amount
       for the left out portion of land to only two months.
10. The aforesaid submission is disputed by learned counsel for the
    respondents on a plea that no such direction was issued either by
    this Court or the High Court permitting compensation for the delayed
    period beyond two months, for which reliance is sought to be placed
    on the order dated 20th September, 2016 passed by the High Court.
11. The aforesaid submission is taken note of only to be turned down.
    The period of two months referred to by the High Court in its order
    dated 20th September, 2016 was only for making payment of the
    amount. Not that any direction was issued to the respondents to
    confine the payment of additional compensation only to a period of
    two months. In fact, the order passed by this Court on 30th March,
    2011 is crystal clear and needs no interpretation. Highlighting certain
    anomalies noticed in Chapter IV A of the Act, particularly Section 20F,
    this Court referred to the proviso to Section 20F (2) and observed
    as follows:
             “12. (iii) The second proviso to section 20F (2) requires
             payment of additional compensation for the delay in making
             of the award, at the rate of not less than five percent of the
             value of award, for each month of delay. This vests unguided
             discretion in the competent authority or the Arbitrator to
             award additional compensation at any higher rate and
             gives room for unnecessary litigation at the instance of
             “entitled persons” claiming higher percentages as additional
             compensation. It is necessary to consider whether specifying
             a fixed monthly rate of increase would serve the ends of
             justice better instead of indicating a minimum rate per month.
                                       xxxx       xxxx   xxxx


8   Award No. 1/2011-12, dated 19th April, 2012
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          713

               Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others


           “13. In view of our finding that the acquisition has not
           lapsed, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the
           High Court, and dismiss the challenge to the acquisition. It
           is however made clear that in view of the delay in making
           the award beyond one year, the first respondent shall be
           entitled to additional compensation as provided under the
           second proviso to section 20F (2) of the Act. Parties to
           bear their respective costs.”
12. It is apparent from the above that the appellant would be entitled to
    additional compensation for the delay in making the award @ not
    less than 5% of the value of the award for each month’s delay. In our
    opinion, there was no reason for the High Court to have relegated
    the appellant to initiate any arbitration proceedings for determining
    the additional compensation when the order passed by this Court had
    clarified the manner in which compensation would be calculated and
    paid for the delay in making the award for the left out parcel of land.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds. The
    appellant is held entitled to additional compensation for the left
    out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award for a
    period spreading over 84 months. Needless to state that the amount
    already paid by the respondents towards the delay, i.e., for a period
    of two months, shall be duly adjusted. The remaining amount shall
    be released by the respondents within eight weeks from today.
    Besides the aforesaid amount, the appellant shall also be entitled
    to simple interest on the outstanding amount calculated @ 7% per
    annum from the date the said amount became due and payable, till
    the same is realized.
14. The appeal is allowed on the above terms while leaving the parties
    to bear their own expenses.

     Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                    Result of the case:
                                                             Appeal allowed.