Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjan State Power Corporation ... vs Sarwan Singh (Since Deceased) Th ... on 7 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103623
CR No.8346 of 2016 and connected matter 2023: PHHC: 103623 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(219) CR No.8346 of 2016
Date of Decision: 07.08.2023
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another .........Petitioners
Versus
Sarwan Singh (deceased) through LRs and others ........Respondents
CR No.8347 of 2016
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another .........Petitioners
Versus
Mewa Singh (deceased) through LRs Tehal Singh and others
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. G. S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL)
1. The aforementioned two revision petitions are being disposed of
vide this common order as the same involve common question of law. For
convenience, facts are taken from Civil Revision No.8346 of 2016.
2. Briefly stating, land owned by the private respondents situated in
village- Kup, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, was sought to be acquired
vide notification dated 13.03.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The award under Section 11 of
the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 15.10.1986 whereby,
the market value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs.31,000/- per Acre.
3. Being dissatisfied, respondents/landowners invoked reference
under Section 18 of Act which came to be decided on 20.02.1991 and the
market value of the land was determined @ Rs.12,500/- per Bigha. Still
aggrieved, the landowners approached this Court by filing RFA which came
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103623
CR No.8346 of 2016 and connected matter 2023: PHHC: 103623 2
up for hearing on 27.08.2012 and the market value of the land was assessed @
Rs.24,000/- per Bigha. Based thereupon, the respondents/landowners filed
execution petitions wherein, a dispute was raised at the instance of petitioners
that in the absence of any specific mention about the award of interest on
solatium by the Reference Court or this Court, the respondents/landowners
were not entitled for award of interest on solatium. The objections raised by
the petitioners were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated
07.09.2016 which has now been impugned by way of present revision
petitions.
4. Relying upon the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, 2006(8) SCC 457, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of there being any
specific mention about award of interest on solatium, the executing Court is
debarred from granting the same in favour of the land owners. He also places
reliance upon latest decision made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Central Govt. of India Vs. Raj Devi alias Raj Kumari and Anr, passed in
Civil Appeal No.4623 of 2021.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/land owners
submits that the exposition of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in case
of Gurpreet Singh's case (Supra) as well as Raj Devi's case (supra),
cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
as the final determination of compensation in favour of the land owners was
made by this Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2012 which was much after the
decision made in case of Sunder Vs. Union of India, 2007(1) SCC 211.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper book as well as law cited at bar. I am unable to find any substance in
the submissions made on behalf of petitioners.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103623
CR No.8346 of 2016 and connected matter 2023: PHHC: 103623 3
7. Once the final determination of market value of the land was
made in favour of petitioners/land owners on 22.08.2012 which was much
after the decision in Sunder's Case (Supra), the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) do not apply.
Moreover, this issue already stands adjudicated upon by the Court vide
judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed in Civil Revision No.1497 of 2013 titled as
Union of India Vs. Ajaib Singh and others. Relevant portion thereof is
reproduced hereunder:
"it is important to note here that the above proposition was
laid down while dealing with the rule of appropriation in
execution of money decree in land acquisition matters, thus, the
same was in fact only to enlarge the scope of the execution
proceedings in a certain way to confer powers upon the
Executing Court to grant benefit of interest on solatium in cases
where determination on the question of market value and
compensation was finally over before the reference Court as well
as the Appellate Court.
Needless to repeat that the entire discussion in Gurpreet
Singh's case (supra) was about cases, wherein the final
determination of compensation was over by the same could not
be made applicable to the claims made by the landowners in the
cases, where the question of quantum of market value and
compensation was pending, but determined finally, post decision
in the case of Sunder's (supra) by reading and applying the text
from the judgment in case of Gurpreet Singh's (supra), in
absolute terms as a statue; rather than reading the point of law it
lays down by reference to the issue involved"
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103623
CR No.8346 of 2016 and connected matter 2023: PHHC: 103623 4
8 In view of the observations made hereinabove, finding no merits
in the present revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE
07.08.2023
anil
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103623
4 of 4
