SUBODH SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 708, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 708 : 2024 INSC 458
Subodh Singh 
v. 
Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 6458 of 2024)
16 May 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for 
the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award 
for a period spreading over 84 months.
Headnotes
Compensation – Additional compensation for the left out 
portion of land – Payment towards the delay only to two 
months – Appellant claimed payments towards delay of 84 
months – Correctness:
Held: Respondents had acquired a land by Notifications issued u/s. 
20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 – An award was declared 
on 08.02.2010 in respect of land that respondent acquired – A parcel 
of land admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare was left out – The High Court 
vide order dated 20.09.2016 directed the respondents to provide 
compensation to the appellant for 0.0624 Hectare of land, which 
was left out, along with additional compensation – While calculating 
the additional compensation, respondent confined the same to a 
period of two months for delayed period – Appellant claimed that he 
was entitled to compensation for a period of 84 months and relied 
on one Kamla Devi & Ors. – This Court noted that an order dated 
18.09.2017, passed by the Competent Authority refers to an order 
dated 19.07.2017, passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition filed by 
Kamla Devi and others and goes on to record that after
completion 
of formalities of publication, some portion of the land admeasuring 
0.0890 Hectare had been left out, as the same was not required for 
the subject project – Subsequently, another award was declared in 
respect of the left out area and additional compensation was paid 
to the land owners @ 5% per month of the award for a period of 66 
months, i.e. from 19.04.2012 to 12.09.2017 – In light of the above, 
the appellant herein cannot be treated differently in his case, the 
respondents ought not to have confined the delayed payment on the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
709
Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others
awarded amount for the left out portion of land to only two months – 
Thus, the appellant is held entitled to additional compensation for 
the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award 
for a period spreading over 84 months. [Paras 3, 4, 9, 12]
Case Law Cited
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh 
[2011] 3 SCR 1160 : (2011) 11 SCC 100 – referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Railways Act, 1989.
List of Keywords
Compensation; Additional compensation; Award; Delay in payment; 
Payment of additional compensation; Additional compensation for 
left out portion of land.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6458 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No. 39875 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
S. B. Upadhyaya, Sr. Adv., Aftab Rasheed, Aftab Ali Khan, M. Z. 
Chaudhary, Mansur Ali Khan, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, M.A. Mansoori, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Amrish Kumar, Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Udupa, 
Manoj Mishra, Chitvan Singhal, Padmesh Mishra, Saurabh Mishra, 
Shrimay Mishra, Abhinav Pandey, Rakesh Chander, Nirbhaya S 
Tewari, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 
2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad
whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein 
praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents to pay
710
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
additional compensation for the entire land area, subject matter of 
the Notification dated 12th December, 2008, issued under Section 
20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act1, 1989, at the rate higher than 5% 
per month and further pay interest @ 18% per annum for delay in 
payment from 30th March, 2011, i.e. the date on which this Court had 
passed an order in Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 20112 titled “Dedicated 
Freight Corridor Corporation of India Vs. Subodh Singh”, till the actual 
date of payment in respect of the award dated 08th February, 2010. 
3.	
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents 
had acquired land in Village Kakrahi, Tehsil and District Auriya, 
Uttar Pradesh vide Notifications dated 10th June, 2008 and 16th 
December, 2008 issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Act. An 
award was declared on 08th February, 2010 only in respect of the 
land that the respondents required. As a result, a parcel of land 
admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare was left out. Aggrieved by the said 
action, the appellant filed a Writ Petition3 before the High Court for 
quashing the award dated 08th February, 2010, which was allowed 
vide order dated 12th May, 2010. Challenging the said order, the 
respondents filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal4 before this 
Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 30th March, 2011 
holding inter alia that the acquisition in question had not lapsed and 
having regard to the second
proviso to section 20F(2) of the Act, 
the land owners would be entitled to an additional compensation 
for the delay in making the payment in terms of the award dated 
08th February, 2010, at a rate not less than 5% of the value of the 
award for each month of delay. 
4.	
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 issued a 
certificate in respect of the entire parcel of land in terms of the 
Notification dated 12th December, 2008, again leaving an area of 
0.0624 Hectare as free from acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved 
by the said decision, the appellant filed another petition5 before the 
High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20th September, 
2016 and the respondents were directed to provide compensation 
1	
For short the ‘Act’
2	
[2011] 3 SCR 1160 : (2011) 11 SCC 100
3	
Writ C. No. 14945/2010
4	
SLP(Civil) No. 26410 of 2010 (i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2794/2011)
5	
Writ C. No. 63467/2011
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
711
Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others
to the appellant for 0.0624 Hectare of land along with additional 
compensation within a period of two months. 
5.	
On 19th November, 2016, the respondents prepared a bank draft for 
a sum of ₹ 2,74,56,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Four Lakh 
Fifty Six Thousand) stating that the same was in respect of the 
compensation payable to the appellant in terms of the order passed 
by the High Court on 20th September, 2016. While calculating the 
additional compensation, the respondent no.2 confined the same to 
a period of two months for the delayed period. 
6.	
Aggrieved by the compensation offered by the respondents limiting 
the delay to only two months, the appellant approached the High 
Court by filing yet another petition6 claiming that he was entitled 
to compensation for a period of 84 months, which would come to 
Rs.10,23,28,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Three Lakh and 
Twenty Eight Thousand), on which the impugned order dated 31st 
August, 2017, has been passed observing that the appellant ought to 
approach the Arbitrator for determining the additional compensation, 
by invoking Section 20F (1) of the Act. 
7.	
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents 
have adopted a pick and choose policy in the instant case. While 
they have paid additional compensation for a period of delay of 66 
months to one Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors., who were similarly situated 
persons like the appellant and
their land was also acquired under 
the very same award, in the case of the appellant the respondents 
have arbitrarily confined the payment towards the delay only to two 
months, instead of 84 months. 
8.	
We have perused the record and heard the arguments advanced 
by learned counsel for the parties. 
9.	
At the outset, we may note that the order dated 18th September, 
2017, passed by the Competent Authority refers to an order dated 
19th July, 2017, passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition7 filed by 
Kamla Devi and others and goes on to record that after completion 
of formalities of publication, some portion of the land admeasuring 
0.0890 Hectare had been left out, as the same was not required for 
6	
Writ C No. 39875/2017
7	
WP No. 65267 of 2012
712
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the subject project. Subsequently, another award8 was declared in 
respect of the left out area and additional compensation was paid 
to the land owners @ 5% per month of the award for a period of 
66 months, i.e. from 19th April, 2012 to 12th September, 2017. In the 
light of the above, the appellant herein is justified in arguing that he 
cannot be treated differently and in his case, the respondents ought 
not to have confined the delayed payment on the awarded amount 
for the left out portion of land to only two months. 
10.	 The aforesaid submission is disputed by learned counsel for the 
respondents on a plea that no such direction was issued either by 
this Court or the High Court permitting compensation for the delayed 
period beyond two months, for which reliance is sought to be placed 
on the order dated 20th September, 2016 passed by the High Court. 
11.	 The aforesaid submission is taken note of only to be turned down. 
The period of two months referred to by the High Court in its order 
dated 20th September, 2016 was only for making payment of the 
amount. Not that any direction was issued to the respondents to 
confine the payment of additional compensation only to a period of 
two months. In fact, the order passed by this Court on 30th March, 
2011 is crystal clear and needs no interpretation. Highlighting certain 
anomalies noticed in Chapter IV A of the Act, particularly Section 20F, 
this Court referred to
the proviso to Section 20F (2) and observed 
as follows:
“12. (iii) The second proviso to section 20F (2) requires 
payment of additional compensation for the delay in making 
of the award, at the rate of not less than five percent of the 
value of award, for each month of delay. This vests unguided 
discretion in the competent authority or the Arbitrator to 
award additional compensation at any higher rate and 
gives room for unnecessary litigation at the instance of 
“entitled persons” claiming higher percentages as additional 
compensation. It is necessary to consider whether specifying 
a fixed monthly rate of increase would serve the ends of 
justice better instead of indicating a minimum rate per month.
xxxx      xxxx      xxxx
8	
Award No. 1/2011-12, dated 19th April, 2012
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
713
Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Others
“13. In view of our finding that the acquisition has not 
lapsed, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the 
High Court, and dismiss the challenge to the acquisition. It 
is however made clear that in view of the delay in making 
the award beyond one year, the first respondent shall be 
entitled to additional compensation as provided under the 
second proviso to section 20F (2) of the Act. Parties to 
bear their respective costs.”
12.	 It is apparent from the above that the appellant would be entitled to 
additional compensation for the delay in making the award @ not 
less than 5% of the value of the award for each month’s delay. In our 
opinion, there was no reason for the High Court to have relegated 
the appellant to initiate any arbitration proceedings for determining 
the additional compensation when the order passed by this Court had 
clarified the manner in which compensation would be calculated and 
paid for the delay in making the award for the left out parcel of land. 
13.	 In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds. The 
appellant is held entitled to additional compensation for the left 
out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award for a 
period spreading over 84 months. Needless to state that the amount 
already paid by the respondents towards the delay, i.e., for a period 
of two months, shall be duly adjusted. The remaining amount shall 
be released by
the respondents within eight weeks from today. 
Besides the aforesaid amount, the appellant shall also be entitled 
to simple interest on the outstanding amount calculated @ 7% per 
annum from the date the said amount became due and payable, till 
the same is realized. 
14.	 The appeal is allowed on the above terms while leaving the parties 
to bear their own expenses. 
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.