High CourtSingle Judge2022-09-23Appeals disposed of; partly allowed.

Harpal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022 (and related: 6740-6743, 6734-6739 of 2022)

Neutral Citation:[2022] 4 S.C.R. 874

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. R. Shah
Krishna Murari
Judgment Date: 2022-09-23
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals partly allowed. The Court enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. 1,00,000 per acre for the RFA No. 1614/2000 appeal and by Rs. 2,00,000 per acre for the remaining appeals, with solatium on the enhanced amount. Original landowners shall not be entitled to statutory benefits including interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the High Court judgments until filing of these appeals. The enhanced compensation must be deposited within three months before the Reference Court. All appeals are disposed of in these terms; there is no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; partly allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Harpal Singh
Anr.

Respondents

State of Punjab
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rameshwar Singh Malik
• Naresh Kaushal
• Dinesh Verma
• Subhasish Bhowmick
• Somvir Singh Deswal
• Satbir Singh Pillania
• Kuldeep Singh Bhakar
• Diwan Singh Chauhan
• Nischal Kumar Neeraj
• Amit Kumar Saroha
• Ravindra Bana

Counsels for Respondents

• Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua
• Harshit Khanduja
• Kanishak Bunderwal
• Ashok K. Mahajan
• Dr. Monika Gusain
• Avi Dhankhar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of Civil Appeals arises from the Land Acquisition Act proceedings in Mohali, where landowners challenge the High Court’s common judgments fixing compensation for acquired land. The Supreme Court, noting the common questions of law and facts across the group, analyzes the High Court’s reliance on earlier decisions—Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another and Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another—and determines that the landowners, being similarly situated, are entitled to enhanced compensation. In the matter arising out of RFA No. 1614/2000, the High Court had determined compensation at Rs. 7,80,000 per acre; in other appeals, it fixed Rs. 19,85,700 per acre. On review, the Court enhances the compensation by Rs. 1,00,000 per acre for the 1614/2000 appeal and by Rs. 2,00,000 per acre for the remaining appeals, with solatium on the enhanced amount. However, it denies statutory benefits including interest under the Act from the date of the High Court judgments until filing of these appeals, citing substantial delay in filing. The enhanced amount must be deposited within three months before the Reference Court. All appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The decision also underlines that the enhanced compensation should be subject to statutory solatium and deposits, while dispensing with interest from the earlier dates.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 4 (Land Acquisition Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court’s reliance on Surjit Singh (2009) and Kapoor Singh (2010) to fix compensation in similar lands should be followed in their cases. They contended for enhanced compensation in line with these precedents, including additional per-acre sums (Rs. 2,00,000 for most appeals and Rs. 1,00,000 for the matter arising out of RFA No. 1614/2000), along with solatium as prescribed. They also sought statutory benefits, including interest on the enhanced amount from the dates of judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged adherence to the High Court’s reliance on its own precedents, arguing that those determinations should govern the landowners’ compensation. They opposed further enhancement beyond the amounts already adjudicated, and resisted payment of interest on the enhanced amounts from the relevant dates, particularly given delays in filing the appeals.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.	RFA No. 3004/2006 (decided 02.03.2009)	Positive	SC decisions in Surjit Singh supported enhancement of compensation in line with prior precedents.
Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another	RFA No. 2348/1998 (decided 28.01.2010)	Positive	SC decision in Kapoor Singh enhanced compensation by Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, used as precedent in the present case.
Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (Common order)	Common order, Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 & 363/2013 (dated 15.01.2014)	Positive	Common order applying enhanced compensation as per Kapoor Singh/Surjit Singh decisions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Harpal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 4 S.C.R. 874 [2022] 4 S.C.R. A HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. ## STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC. B (Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 ## **[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]** _Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of – Held: While determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the High Court relied upon its earlier decisions_ C _in the cases of_ Surjit Singh _&_ Kapoor Singh _– Aforesaid decisions of the High Court were the subject matter of appeals before Supreme Court wherein the compensation was further enhanced – Landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated – Accordingly, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners_ D _is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in C.A. arising out of RFA No.1614 of 2000 and by Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals – Further, original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation – However, they shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the interest under the Act from the_ E _date of respective judgments and orders passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in Supreme Court._ _Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc._ **Common order of Supreme Court dtd. 15.01.2014 passed in** F **Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – relied on.** G _Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another_ **Decision of High Court dtd. 2.3.2009 in RFA No. 3004/2006;** _Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab & Another_ **Decision of High Court dtd. 28.01.2010 in RFA No. 2348/1998 – referred to.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 67446758 of 2022. H 874 HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 875 ETC. ETC. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2012 of the High A Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No. 3941-3949, 3952, 3953, 4485 of 2007 and 1448, 2871, 3974 of 2008. ## With Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6743, 6734-6739 of 2022 B Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh Pillania, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Diwan Singh Chauhan, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Amit Kumar Saroha, Ravindra Bana, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja, Kanishak Bunderwal, Ashok K. Mahajan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi Dhankhar, Advs. for the Respondents. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **M. R. SHAH, J.** 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012 / 02.03.2009 / 09.11.2009 passed in the respective first appeals, the particulars of which are as under:- D E |Sl. No.|Particulars|RFA No.|Date of Order|Section 4 Notification date|F G H| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab|3941/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |2.|Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. State of Punjab|3942/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |3.|Ajaib Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|3943/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |4.|Gian Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|3944/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |5.|Amirk Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|3945/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |6.|Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|3946/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| |7.|Bakhtaur Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.|3947/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002|| 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. |A B C D E F G|1.|Bachan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. State of Punjab|3948/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| |---|---|---|---|---|---| ||2.|Labh Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab|3949/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||3.|Ajmer Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab|3952/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||4.|Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab|3953/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||5.|Tarlochan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.|4485/2007|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||6.|Gurdev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|1448/2008|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||7.|Amar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|2871/2008|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||8.|Gurdip Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|3974/2008|01.05.2012|21.11.2002| ||9.|Mehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab|784/2007|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||10.|Mewa Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|783/2007|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||11.|Jagir Singh (dead) and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|2715/2007|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||12.|Norata Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab|4319/2006|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||13.|Hardial Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|4300/2006|09.11.2009|21.02.2000| ||14.|Jagir Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|1614/2000|28.01.2010|21.02.2000| ||15.|Nasib Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.|3112/2005|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||16.|Sher Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab|4318/2006|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||17.|Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|4088/2007|02.03.2009|21.02.2000| ||18.|Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|1468/2008|09.11.2009|21.02.2000| determining the compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in respective first appeals, except RFA No. 1614 of 2000, the original claimants/ H landowners have preferred the present appeals. HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 877 ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 2.1 In RFA No.1614 of 2000, the High Court has awarded the A compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in the respective first appeals, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of **Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/** B **2006 decided on 2.3.2009)** . So far as Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 is concerned, the High Court has determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre alongwith solatium relying upon its earlier decision in the case of **Kapoor Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010)** . C 4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the High Court in the cases of **Surjit Singh (supra)** & **Kapoor Singh (supra)** were the subject matter of appeals before this Court. In the case of **Kapoor Singh (supra)** and other allied first appeals, this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the case of **Surjit Singh (supra)** , the same has been enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, payable by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with interest and solatium as prescribed by the Statute from the date of the orders passed by the High Court **(vide common order dated 15.01.2014 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 – Kapoor Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).** D E 5. It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of **Surjit Singh (supra)** & **Kapoor Singh (supra)** respectively. Therefore, the present appeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the cases of **Surjit Singh (supra)** & **Kapoor Singh (supra)** , by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre respectively. However, there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to deny the statutory benefits including interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment/s and order/s passed by the High Court till the present appeals (special leave petitions) have been preferred before this Court. F G H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. - A 6. In view of the above facts, all these appeals are partly allowed. Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 dated 28.01.2010. We enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals arising out of impugned - B common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012/02.03.2009/ 09.11.2009. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is also further ordered that the original landowners/ claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the - C interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of respective judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in this Court. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority within three months from today before the Reference Court. - D 7. All these appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Divya Pandey (Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA) E Appeals disposed of. F G H