11 January 2011
Supreme Court
Download

DEVINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB .

Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-004843-004843 / 2007
Diary number: 14145 / 2006
Advocates: Vs J S WAD AND CO


1

IA Nos. 3-4 in CA 4843/2007 1

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IA Nos. 3-4 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4843 OF 2007

DEVINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

AND

IA Nos. 2-3 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4844 OF 2007

SATWANT KAUR & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

at length.

2. 241 kanals of land was acquired for the benefit  

of the applicant.  As per the judgment of this Court  

dated 12th October 2007, the acquisition proceedings qua  

all save 35 kanals have been quashed.  It is the case  

of the applicant that the judgment of this Court should  

be confined only to those who had made a challenge to  

the land acquisition and not to those who had not come  

to Court.  This may be the position in law but in the  

facts of the case that only a miniscule piece of land

2

IA Nos. 3-4 in CA 4843/2007 2

I.e. 35 kanals is now in the hands of the applicant, we  

feel that no clarification needs be given.  

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the learned Senior Advocate for  

the applicant has, however, pointed out that to add  

insult to injury the State Government while refunding a  

sum of Rs.2,57,75,073/- to the applicant had retained a  

sum of Rs.44,85,179/- on the ground that this amount  

represented  the  acquisition  and  departmental  charges  

and  approximately  Rs.11,00,000/-  towards  super  

structure  charges.   We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

deduction of these amounts is totally unjustified for  

the  reason  that  the  State  Government  had  issued  a  

faulty  notification  for  acquisition  which  has  been  

quashed by this Court and the beneficiary applicant had  

no role to play in its issuance. We, therefore, feel  

that  the  amount  of  Rs.44,85179/-  and  Rs.11,00,000/-  

should also be refunded to the applicant.  

We,  accordingly,  dispose  of  the  applications  

filed by the applicant in the above terms.  No order as  

to costs.      

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

3

IA Nos. 3-4 in CA 4843/2007 3

NEW DELHI JANUARY 11, 2011.