REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3024  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.5513 of 2014)

Rameshwar Dass     ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Punjab        ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.3028   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL No.3026   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8073 of 2014

CIVIL APPEAL No.3029  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014

CIVIL APPEAL No.3027  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014

AND

CIVIL APPEAL No.3025  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6261 of 2014    

1

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  25.09.2013  passed  by

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

in R.F.A. No.1943 of 1996.

3. In order to  appreciate the  issues  involved  in

this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant

facts hereinbelow.

4. The  appellant is  a landowner  of the land  in

question  whereas the respondent is the State of

Punjab. This appeal along with other connected

appeals arises out of determination of the

compensation made by the High Court in relation to

the appellant’s land that was acquired in land

acquisition proceedings.  

2

5. In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the State

(respondent herein) acquired the total land

measuring  around 14.49 acres  on 29.03.1988  for

execution of public purpose, namely, "construction

of Satluz­Yamuna canal". It was followed by

publication of declaration as required under Section

6 of the Act on 03.05.1988.  

6. The acquired land (14.49 acres) is situated in 9

villages, namely,(1) Jandpur, Tahsil Kharar, District

Ropar; (2)  Dharak  Khurd,  Tahsil  Kharar,  District

Ropar; (3) Pamour, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala;

(4) Majat, Tahsil Kharar,  District Ropar; (5) Matran,

Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (6) Bhago Majra,

Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (7) Siampur,

Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (8) Mataur,

Tahsil Mohali, District Kharar; and (9) Manak

Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar.  So far as the

3

appellant’s land  is  concerned, it is located  in  the

village Bhago Majra

7. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under

Section 11 of the Act initiated the proceedings for

determination of compensation payable to the

landowners of the aforementioned 9 villages.  So far

as the village of Bhago Majra is concerned, by his

award dated 21.08.1990,  the LAO determined the

compensation payable to the landowners in relation

to claim of land as under:  

S.No. Class of land Rate per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer

1. Chahi Rs.55,000/­ 2. Barani Rs.55,000/­ 3. Gair mumkin Rs.40,000/­

8. The landowners including the appellant herein

felt aggrieved by the offer  made by the LAO, as

mentioned above, sought reference to the Civil

Court for re­determination of the rate of the

compensation in respect of the  acquired land. In

4

relation to the land belonging to the appellant, the

Civil Court by its award dated 17.04.1996 re­

determined the compensation and enhanced the

rates of the land as under:  

S.No. Class of land Rate per acre awarded by the Reference Court

1. Chahi Rs.1,00,000/­ 2. Barani Rs.75,000/­ 3. Gair mumkin Rs.55,000/­

9. The landowners including the appellant herein

felt  aggrieved by  the aforementioned award of the

Reference Court and filed appeal in the High Court.

10. When the matter came up for hearing before

the  High Court,  none  appeared  for the  appellant.

The High Court on hearing the State counsel partly

allowed the appeal in favour of the landowner

(appellant herein) in the light of the decision

rendered in RFA No. 953 of 1994, Hari Singh and

others  vs.  State of Punjab  &  Anr.  decided on

01.07.2013 and enhanced the rate of compensation

5

as was determined by the High Court in the case of

Hari Singh  (supra). The impugned order reads as

under:

“No one has appeared for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State very fairly submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in RFA No.953 of 1994 Hari Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.  decided on 1.7.2013.

For the reasons recorded in Hari Singh’s case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms.”

11. It is against this order, the appellant

(landowner) has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal

by way of special leave in this Court.   

12. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration  in this  appeal, is  whether the  High

Court was justified in partly allowing the appeal in

the light of its earlier order dated 01.07.2013

passed in  Hari Singh and others  vs.  State of

Punjab & Anr. and other connected appeals (supra)

or in other words, whether the appellant

6

(landowner) is entitled to claim enhancement in the

rate of compensation awarded by the High Court.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in this appeal.

14. On perusal of the impugned order quoted

above, it is clear that the main order was passed by

the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another

landowner ­  Hari  Singh by which the High Court

partly allowed the other several appeals filed by the

landowners and has enhanced the compensation

payable to the landowners in relation to their land

situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence,

has dismissed the appeals filed by the State against

the award of the Reference Court.   

15. In other words, Hari Singh’s case (supra) also

arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings

out  of  which  the  present  bunch of  appeal  arises.

The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the

7

lead appeal by the High Court for determining the

market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By a

common judgment dated 01.07.2013, the High

Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals,

enhanced the rate of compensation and in

consequence dismissed the State's appeals.

16. In  Hari Singh’s case  (supra), the High Court

threadbare examined the issue of determination of

market rate of  the acquired land situated in each

village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location,

and the distance of acquired land situated in 9

villages from Chandigarh.  The High Court took note

of the assessments  made  in  relation  to  the  lands

situated at village Mehmudpur, Tehsil Sottal under

the  land acquisition notification dated 18.09.1985

and  while providing for enhancement  @  10%  for

each year, enhanced the compensation for the

acquisition in question that was made in the year

1988,   for the lands situated at villages  Matur,

8

Matran, Siampur and Jandpur to Rs.2,50,000/­ for

Chahi  with proportionate decrease  for  Barani  and

Gair Mumkin land.  As regards the land situated at

village Bhago Majra, the High Court made deduction

to the extent of 20% keeping in view the nature of

the land, its quality, location and distance from the

city  of  Chandigarh and  accordingly enhanced the

rate of compensation as under:

S.No. Class of land Rate per acre awarded by the   High Court

1. Chahi Rs.2,00,000/­ 2. Barani Rs.1,60,000/­ 3. Gair mumkin Rs.1,20,000/­

17. Learned counsel for the appellant (landowner),

on the  basis of the  map  of the site in question,

argued that the land situated in village Bhago Majra

with which we are concerned in these appeals has

more potential as compared to the lands situated in

other villages or in any event, according to learned

counsel, it should have been made at par with the

9

other lands where high rate has been determined. It

was urged that the land situated in Bhago Majra is

also near to Mohali and Chandigarh distance­wise

and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim

more compensation than what has been determined

by the High Court in Hari Singh’s case (supra) or at

least the  appellant is entitled to claim the same

compensation as has been granted to the

landowners of the land which are situated in other

villages.

18. We find no merit in  this  submission. In our

view, the High Court has taken into account all the

aspects, such as location of each village, distance

from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was

done by the LAO and then has worked out the rates

of the lands situated in each village after giving

appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may

be, which has varied from 10%, 20% and 25%

depending upon the aforementioned factors.

10

19. In our  view, the  aforementioned approach of

the  High Court  which we have  also  examined on

perusal of the site map cannot be faulted with.  It is

just and proper calling for no interference.   

20. The appellant  failed to show that the Courts

below did not consider any material piece of

evidence which had bearing over the issue in

question.  Likewise, the appellant was also not able

to show that the High Court committed any

fundamental error in determining the market value

of the land situated in 9 villages.  

21. On the other hand, we also find that the High

Court has fixed appropriate rates for the lands

situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago

Majra village after taking into account their location

and the potentiality from all angles.  

22. Like the appellant, all other landowners whose

land is situated in village Bhago Majra have also got

the compensation at the uniform rate depending

11

upon the quality of three classes of land.  It is clear

from  the following chart indicating the respective

rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer,

Reference Court and the High Court  qua    the

appellant’s land:

S.No. Class of land

Rate per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer

Rate per acre awarded by the Reference Court

Rate per acre awarded by the High Court

1 Chahi Rs.55,000/­ Rs.1,00,000/­ Rs.2,00,000/­ 2 Barani Rs.55,000/­ Rs.75,000/­ Rs.1,60,000/­ 3 Gair

Mumkin Rs.40,000/­ Rs.55,000/­  Rs.1,20,000/­

23. We are, therefore, unable to find any good

ground to further enhance the rate of compensation

than what has been enhanced by the High Court in

the impugned order.

24. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion,

we  find no merit in this  appeal.  This appeal fails

and is accordingly dismissed.    

12

In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P. (C) No. 8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014  

1. Leave granted.

2. So far these appeals are concerned, these were

also disposed of by the High Court in the light of its

earlier order dated 01.07.2013 passed in RFA

No.953/1994  Hari Singh and others  vs.  State of

Punjab & Anr.  (supra) except the difference being

that  in these appeals,  the appellants  (landowners)

were duly represented before the High Court.

3. In view of the  order  passed  above in  C.A.@

S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014, these appeals are also

dismissed.

C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014

1. Leave granted.

2. So far this appeal is concerned, the appeal was

filed and dismissed by the High Court by the order

dated 13.01.2009 whereby the order passed by the

13

Civil Court came to be upheld.   Thereafter, in the

light of the decision rendered in Hari Singh & Ors.

(supra), the appellant  preferred an application  for

recall  on 01.08.2013 with a prayer for  enhancing

the compensation.   The said application was

dismissed  on  20.11.2013 on the  ground that the

appellant neither availed of further remedy against

the order dated 13.01.2009 nor filed application for

recall immediately thereafter.

3. In view of the order passed in  Hari Singh &

Ors.(supra), which is affirmed hereinabove and the

compensation has been allowed to all the

landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less

uniform rates, this appellant deserves the same

relief. Hence, the order dated 20.11.2013 dismissing

the  application for recall as  also the  order  dated

01.08.2013 in RFA are hereby set aside. This

appellant is also held entitled to the same relief as

allowed  in the case of   Hari Singh & Ors.(supra)

14

but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the

period 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013.   The concerned

authorities shall take necessary steps immediately

for disbursing the amount of compensation in

accordance with law.

The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.

           ………...................................J.   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                     ....……..................................J.

         [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 14, 2019.

15