[2008] 10 S.C.R. 971

JEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

A v

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4365 of 2008)

JULY 14, 2008

[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 23, 28 and 34 - Compensation - Rule of appropriation - Order of High Court in Civil Revision as a/so Review applications that claimants not c entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment to be made as per the law laid down by this Court in *Prem Nath Kapoor's

~ case - Ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor's case approved in Constitution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh - Observation in D Constitution Bench decision "but if there is any shortfall at any stage, rule of appropriation can be applied in respect of that amount" - Claimant's case that this aspect of the matter not considered by High Court - On appeal, held: Matters remitted to High Court for decision in the light of the observations E in Constitution Bench decision in Gurpreat Singh.

The lands of the appellants-landowners were acquired for the benefit of Haryana. Urban Development ,. ' Authority-HUDA and Food Corporation of lndia-FCI. The Land Acquisition Collector deposited the amount. The F claimants filed applications before the Execution Court.

The applications were allowed holding that claimant was entitled to get interest on the solatium and to appropriate the amount already paid or deposited in the court firstly towards costs, then towards interest and then towards G solatium and in the last towards principal amount. HUDA and FCI challenged the order by filing Revision Petitions.

The Single Judge of the High Court relying upon the law laid down by this Court in *Prem Nath Kapoor's case held

972 H

A that the claimants were not entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment would be made strictly as per the law laid down by this Court in Prem NathKapoor's case.

Appellants filed review applications. High Court dismissed

"'" B the applications. Hence the present appeals.

< ' ·~ Subsequently, similar issue which was decided in Prem Nath Kapoor's case was referred to Constitution Bench of this Court by a three"!Judge Bench and come to be decided in **Gurpreet Singh's cse. c Appellants-landowners relying on the observation in Constitution Bench case in *Gurpreet Singh v Union of India that "but if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree-holder could apply the rule of appropria-

D tion in respect of that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs", contended that the ratio in **Prem Nath Kapobr's case on appropriation being at different stages was justified though if at a particular stage there was a

E shortfall, the awardee-decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest then towards costs and then towards the principal; anq that the High Col, lrt did. not consider this aspect of the matter either in the civil revi- $i.on or in the review petitions, thus, it would be fit and .. F proper for this Court to remit the. case to the Execution

ourt for disposal in the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court made in the Constitution Bench decision.

G Respondent-State contended that although the Constitution Bench decision had approved the Prem Nath ,.- Kapoor's case, but in addition to that had also made certain observation and that it would be fit and proper that the matter be remitted to the High Court for decision in

H the light of the observations made by this Court in the

Constitution Bench without sending the same before the A Executing Court, as the execution cases have already been disposed of by the Execution Court.

Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High ..

Court, the Court B HELD: The impugned order of the High Court rejecting the review petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for decision in the light of the observations of this Court made in the Constitution Bench decision *Gurpreet Singh v Union of India. High Court c would consider whether the Constitution Bench decision would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. [Para 6] [977-C, D & G]

• *Prem Nath Kapoor and Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and and Ors. JT 1995 (9) SC 23; D **Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 457 - referred to.

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4365 of 2008 E From the final Judgment and Order dated 18/10/2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application Nos. 86-C-ll of 2002, 87-C-ll of 2002, 88-C-112002, .. 89-C-ll of 2002, 90-C-ll of 2002, 91-C-ll of 2002, 92-C-ll of 2002 and 93-C-ll of 2002, in Civil Revision Nos. 3273 of 2001, 3275 F of 2001, 3276 of 2001, 3277 of 2001, 3278 of 2001, 3280 of 2001, 3281 of 2001 and 3282 of 2001 respectively

Pradeep Kr. Ghosh, Sanjay Jain for the Appellants.

Govind Goel, Parbodh Kumar and S.S. Banthia for the G Respondents . .,, __

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and or- H

A der dated 1 s1n of October, 2005, passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No.86-Cll/2002 in Civil Revision No.3273/2001, Review Application No. 87-Cll/2002 in CR No.3275/2001, Review Application No. 88-Cll/2002 in CR.No.3276/2001, Review Application B No. 89-Cll/2002 in CR No. 3277/2001, Review Application No.

90-Cll/2002 in CR No.3278/2001, Review Application No. 91- Cll/2002 in CR No.3280/2001, Review Application No.92-Cll/ 2002 in CR No.3281/2001 and Review Application No. 93-Cll/ 2002 in CR No.3282/2001 by which the bunch of review gppli- C cations filed at the instance of claimants-landowners-appellants in the connected civil revision petitions was disposed of. A bunch of 13 civil revision petitions was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 251h of October, 2001. All the revision petitions were filed by the. Haryana Urban Development D Authority, Gurgaon, for whose benefit the land belonging to the claimants-landowners was acquired. Similarly, a bunch of 15 civil revision petitions was decided by another learned Single Judge of the High Court which was filed by the Food Corporation of India, for whose benefit the land was acquired. In these cases, the learned Single Judge of the High Court followed the E proposition of law laid down in judgment dated 251h of October,

2001 passed in Review Application No. 113-Cll/2002 in CR No. 2842/2002. Vide an order dated 20th of May. 2001, the Executing Court allowed the application of the claimants-appellants in Review Application No. 113-Cll/2002 in CR No. 2842/2002 F holding that she was entitled to get interest on the solatium and to appropriate the amount already paid or deposited in the court firstly towards costs, then towards interest and then towards solatium and in the last towards principal amount. The order dated 101h of May, 2001 passed by the Executing Court was G challenged by the Haryana Urban Development Authority before the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2842 of 2001.

Similar revision petitions were filed in other connected matters.

One of the questions that arose before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for adjudication was as follows:- H

"Whether claimants/landowners do have the right to A appropriate the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector as per their own discretion or the same has to be paid in view of the Scheme of the Act?"

3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relying upon

'""' the law laid down by this court in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor B and Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and & Ors. [JT 1995 (9) SC 23) held that the claimants were not entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment shall be made strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in C Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra). Accordingly, the aforesaid question was answered in favour of the acquiring authorities and against the claimants. The present review applications were filed by the claimants-appellants praying for review of the afore- • said decision of the learned Single Judge qua the aforesaid o question. While deciding the review applications, the High Court in the impugned order made the following observations -

"In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra) and a/so having noticed the same in Mis. Industrial Credit and E Development Syndicate, we are not inclined to take any different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has placed specific reliance upon Prem Nath Kapoor's case and as per law laid down by the Apex Court, no exception F to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge can be taken. Consequently, we hold that in the land acquisition proceedings, the claimants cannot be allowed to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment has to G be made strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra). Holding as above, the review cases were dismissed."

4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants-appellants moved this Court and notices were issued. Subsequently, similar issue H

A which was decided in Prem Nath. Kapoor's case, namely, Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, SLP©No.8408 of 2003 was referred to Constitution Bench of this Court by a three-Judge and finally the question referred before the Constitution Bench was decided in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (8) B SCC 457. After the above question was dcided by the Consti~

tution Bench, the matter has now come up for hearing before us.

Mr.Ghosh learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants had drawn o.ur attention at paragraph 36 of the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision at page 478, particularly the portion, namely, c "but if there is any shc)rtfall at a(ly stag~, the claimant or decreeholder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs." ·

- 5. Relying on this observation, Mr.Ghosh submitted that D the ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor's case on appropriation being at different stages was justified though if at a particular stage there was a shortfall, the awardee-decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same onthe general principle of appropriation, first towards interest then towards costs and then E towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment deb.tor while making the deposit intimating the decree holder of his intention. Relying on this observation of this Court made in the ConstituUon Bench, Mr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing F for the appellants submitted that this aspect of the matter not having been considered by the High Court either in the civil revision case or in the. review petitions, it would be fit and proper for this Court to send the cases back to the Executing Court for disposal in the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court G made in the Constitution Bench decision as referred to herein above. This submission of Mr.Ghosh WC!S contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and he submitted that although the Constitution Bench decision had approved the. Prem Nath Kapoor's case, but in addition to that had also. made the observatior. it would be fit nd proper that H

.. ~·

the matter may be remitted back to the High Court for decision A in the light of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid Constitution Bench without sending the same before the Executing Court, as the execution cases have already been disposed of by the Executing Court. However, at the time of consideration, the High Court shall also take into consideration the B observations made by the Constitution Bench as noted herein above be applicable to the present cases.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after noticing the judgment of the Constitution Bench particularly the observations on which reliance was placed by the C learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order be set aside and the matters may be remitted back to the High Court for decision in the light of the observations of this Court made in the Constitution Bench decision as • referred to herein above. Accordingly, the impugned orders of D the High Court rejecting the review petitions are set aside and. the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The High Court is requested to decide the review petitions as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of supply of the copy of this order. It is needless to say that in the event the E High Court feels that while deciding the review petitions, it would be appropriate for it to take up the civil revision cases as well, it will be open to the High Court to take up the review petitions also along with the civil revision cases treating the orders passed

.i • by the High Court in revision as set aside.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned orders and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the arguments advanced by the parties on the question whether the Constitution

Bench decision would be applicable in the facts and circumstances G of the case and it is kept to be taken into consideration by the High

.i.-.

Court in the manner indicated above. The appee1I is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

N.J.

Appeals allowed.