1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18619 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31117 OF 2017] [ DIARY NO. 11875 OF 2017]

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                        Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

BHAGTA (D) THROUGH LRS  & ORS.                Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18618 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31120 OF 2017]

[ DIARY NO. 11555 OF 2017]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Delay condoned.  Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court with certain grievances regarding the compensation awarded by the court in land acquisition proceedings.  A batch of similar appeals came up before this Court, i.e. Civil Appeal Nos. 1949-1966 of 2016 & connected matters, when this Court passed the following Judgment :-

“1. All these appeals are filed by the  State,  aggrieved  by  the compensation  awarded  for  the  lands acquired  for  the  purpose  of construction  of  Ranjit  Sagar  Dam Project  vide  Notification  dated 07.08.1995 under Section 4(1) of the

2

Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector categorized the lands into six categories and awarded compensation,  according  to  the categorization  based  on  the  nature and utility of the land.   2. The  Reference  Court,  however, granted a uniform rate of Rs.1,600/- per  marla.   Aggrieved,  the  State pursued the appeals before the High Court.  The High Court took up the appeal  filed  against  the  award  in Usha Rani's case as lead case.  That appeal had been filed with a delay of 492 days.  The High Court declined to condone the delay, though the Court has  referred  in  detail  to  the affidavit  explaining  the  delay. Without  stopping  there,  the  High Court proceeded further and on merits also  it  was  held  that  the compensation awarded by the Reference Court  @  Rs.1,600/-  per  marla  was just, fair and proper.  As far as the compensation  part  is  concerned,  we find that there is no discussion at all to the basis of the fixation of the  compensation  by  the  Reference Court, nor is there any reference to the  materials  available  before  the Reference Court for fixation of the compensation.   Thus,  the  appeal  by the  State  in  Usha  Rani  case  was dismissed,  both  on  the  grounds  of limitation and on merits.  Hence, the

3

State is in appeal before this Court. 3. Heard  Mr.  V.K.  Bali,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the State  and  the  learned  counsel appearing  for  the claimants/respondents.   On  going through the detailed affidavit filed by the State for condonation of delay of 492 days, we are of the considered view that the High Court should have appreciated the actual reason for the delay.  We do not want to deal with the matter any further.  Suffice it to  say,  that  the  High  Court  could have given the liberty to the State to  take  appropriate  action  against the  erring  officers,  who  apparently have caused delay deliberately. 4. Be  that  as  it  may,  on  going through the detailed affidavit filed in  support  of  the  condonation  of delay of 492 days, we are of the view that  the  delay  is  liable  to  be condoned  in  the  interest  of administration of justice.  However, we  direct  the  State  Government  to take  appropriate  action,  in accordance with law, on the officers who caused delay. 5. On going through the merits of the case, as we have already stated above, there is no discussion by the High Court on any of the materials available on record, so as to sustain the  compensation  of  Rs.1,600/-  per

4

marla.  For that reason also, these appeals are liable to be allowed by remanding  the  matters  to  the  High Court  for  consideration  on  merits. Since,  the  case  of  Usha  Rani  is followed in all other cases, the rest of the appeals are also liable to be allowed, as above.   6. Accordingly,  the  impugned orders in all these appeals filed by the  State  are  set  aside  and  the appeals are allowed, as above.  The delay in filing the appeal(s) before the High Court in the case of Usha Rani is condoned.  The matters are remanded  to  the  High  Court  with  a direction  to  the  High  Court  to consider  the  matters  afresh  on merits. 7. We make it clear that we have not considered any matter on merits and, therefore, the parties are free to  take  all  available  contentions before the High Court. 8. Being  an  acquisition  pursuant to the notification issued in 1995, we request the High Court to dispose of  the  appeals  expeditiously  and preferably  within  a  period  of  six months. 9. Till  the  appeals  are  disposed of,  as  above,  there  shall  be  no recovery  of  compensation,  if  any, already paid to the claimants. 10. There shall be no order as to

5

costs. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

3. Having  regard  to  the  Judgment,  as  extracted above, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, since this case also forms part of the same common order.  Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the Judgment extracted above.

4. Since  no  notice  has  been  issued  to  the respondents,  we  direct  the  appellant-State  to immediately communicate a copy of this Judgment along with a copy of the appeal to the respondents.

No costs.   .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; November 13, 2017.

6

ITEM NO.19               COURT NO.5               SECTION IV-B                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 11875/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-09-2015 in RFA No. 4161/2002 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) STATE OF PUNJAB  & ORS.                            Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS BHAGTA (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.                      Respondent(s) (IA No.39817/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP) WITH Diary No(s). 11555/2017 (IV-B) ( IA No.42127/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)   Date : 13-11-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR

Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Adv.  Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.  

                   For Respondent(s)                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  civil  appeals  are  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)