UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TARSEM SINGH & ORS.

p. 100 Copy page pinpoint

A of the Madras High Court in T. Chakrapani vs Union of India, both of which distinguished the Requisition Act cases and relied upon Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra) in order to reach the same conclusion as the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Both these judgments are also correct.

40Copy pinpoint40. One more argument was raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, which is that nothing survives in these mattes in view of orders passed by this Court in Union of India v. T. Chakrapani – the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court having come before this Court. This order is quoted by us in full : C “In view of the statement made by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India on an earlier date of the hearing that solatium in terms of the impugned order of the High Court would be granted for the instant acquisitions made under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, no subsisting issue remains in the present appeals as also in the special leave petition. The D appeals as also the special leave petition are accordingly closed. The respondents – writ petitioners be paid solatium as due in terms of the impugned order(s) along with interest thereon.” We were also referred to an order in Sunita Mehra v. Union of India (2016) SCC OnLine 1128, in which this Court held : E “6. The only point agitated before us by the learned Solicitor General is that in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, it has been held that land-owners would “henceforth” be entitled to solatium and interest as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the F ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment it has, however, been mentioned that in respect of all acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, 1956, solatium and interest in terms similar to those contained in Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will have to be paid.

G 7. Learned Solicitor General has pointed out that there is an apparent inconsistency in the judgment, which needs to be clarified. It has also been submitted by the learned Solicitor General that the order of the High Court should be clarified to mean that the issue of grant of interest and solatium should not be allowed to be reopened without any restriction or reference to time. Learned H

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TARSEM SINGH & ORS. 101 [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Solicitor General has particularly submitted that to understand the A order of the High Court in any other manner would not only seriously burden the public exchequer but would also amount to overlooking the delay that may have occurred on the part of the land-owner(s) in approaching the Court and may open floodgates for en masse litigation on the issue. B

8. We have considered the submissions advanced. In Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457, this Court, though in a different context, had restricted the operation of the judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 and had granted the benefit of interest on solatium only in respect of pending proceedings. We are of the view that a similar course should be adopted in the present case also. Accordingly, it is directed that the award of solatium and interest on solatium should be made effective only to proceedings pending on the date of the High Court order in Golden Iron & Steel Forgins v. Union of India i.e. 28.03.2008. Concluded cases should not be opened. As for future proceedings, the position would be covered by the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (came into force on 01.01.2014), which Act has been made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 by virtue of notification/order issued under the provisions of the Act of 2013.” E

41Copy pinpoint41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions H

p. 102 Copy page pinpoint

A made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed.

42Copy pinpoint42. Coming to the individual appeals in the case, Shri Mukul Rohatgi B has raised essentially 11 grounds, which, according to him, require the Court’s attention. We will deal with each of these grounds seriatim hereinbelow: Ground 1: That the acquired land was treated as commercial land, ignoring Section 143 of The Punjab Regional and Town C Planning and Development Act, 1995, due to which construction is restricted upto 50m on either side of the National Highway. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15482/2019; SLP (C) No. 15472/2019; SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15442-15443/2019; SLP (C) No. 15488/2019; SLP (C) No. D 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No.15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 15448/2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/2019; SLP E (C) No. 14491/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/2019; SLP (C) No. 21657/2019; SLP (C) No. 21664/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21666/2019; SLP (C) No. 21671/2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21673/2019; SLP (C) No. 21663/2019; SLP (C) No. 21695/2019; SLP (C) No. 21692/2019; SLP (C) No. 21693/2019; SLP (C) No. 9602/ F 2019; SLP (C) No. 9600/2019; SLP (C) No. 21687/2019; SLP (C) No. 21689/2019; SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 10210/2019 In these matters, this ground has been raised and argued sometimes at the Section 34 stage, sometimes at the Section 37 stage, and G sometimes at both stages. The burden to prove that the land in question is within 50m of the National Highway, and that it does not have commercial potentiality, is on the NHAI but, on facts, has never been discharged. This being the case in all these appeals, they stand dismissed. H

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TARSEM SINGH & ORS. 103 [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; SLP (C) No. 15471/2019; SLP A (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/2019; SLP (C) No. 21683/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken or argued in the Section 34 petition. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. B Ground 2: That the arbitrator conducted the spot visit five years after the Section 3A notification was issued, based on which compensation was determined. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15482/2019; SLP (C) No. 15472/2019; SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. C 15442-15443/2019; SLP (C) No. 15488/2019; SLP (C) No. 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; SLP (C) No. 15471/2019; SLP (C) No. D 15448/2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15486/2019; SLP (C) No. 14491/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/2019; SLP (C) No. 21657/2019; SLP (C) No. 21664/2019; SLP (C) No. 21666/2019; SLP (C) No. 21671/2019; SLP (C) No. 21682/ E 2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21673/2019; SLP (C) No. 21663/2019; SLP (C) No. 21695/2019; SLP (C) No. 21691/2019; SLP (C) No. 21692/2019; SLP (C) No. 21693/2019; SLP (C) No. 10210/ 2019 F In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in the Section 34 petitions filed in these cases. Further, assessment, in any case, of the land in question, relates to the date of the original notification. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 3:That exemplars of faraway villages in other districts G were relied upon to enhance compensation. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15482/2019; SLP (C) No. 15472/2019; SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15442-15443/2019; SLP (C) No. 15488/2019; SLP (C) No. H

p. 104 Copy page pinpoint

A 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/ 2019; SLP (C) No.15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; SLP (C) No.15471/2019; SLP (C) No. 15448/2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/2019; SLP (C) No. 15486/ B 2019; SLP (C) No. 14491/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/2019; SLP (C) No. 21657/2019; SLP (C) No. 21664/2019; SLP (C) No. 21666/2019; SLP (C) No. 21671/2019; SLP (C) No. 21682/2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21673/2019; C SLP (C) No. 21663/2019; SLP (C) No. 21695/2019; SLP (C) No. 21691/2019; SLP (C) No. 21692/2019; SLP (C) No. 21693/2019; SLP (C) No. 9602/2019; SLP (C) No. 9600/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21687/2019; SLP (C) No. 21683/2019; SLP (C) No. 21689/2019; SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 10210/2019 D In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 4: That the Arbitrator relied upon the Collector Rate of E the year 2011-13/ 2012-13. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15472/2019; SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15488/2019; SLP (C) No. 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/ F 2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; SLP (C) No. 15486/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/2019; SLP (C) No. 21664/2019; SLP (C) No. 21671/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21682/2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21695/2019; SLP G (C) No. 21693/2019; SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/2019; In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. H

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TARSEM SINGH & ORS. 105 [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

SLP (C) No. 15471/2019 A In this matter, this ground has been taken up in the Section 34 petition, however, the High Court has rightly dismissed this appeal in terms of the Punjab & Haryana High Court order dated 15.02.17, in FAO No. 6522 of 2016, titled ‘Mangal Dass vs. Govt. of India’, wherein compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 per marla, which B was calculated based on the collector rate of 2011, was held to be not justified, and was reduced to Rs. 4,50,000 per marla. Therefore, this appeal also stands dismissed. Ground 5: That compensation on account of loss of structure was awarded. C SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/2019; In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. D SLP (C) No. 15472/2019 In this matter, this ground has not been taken in the Section 37 appeal. Therefore, this appeal also stands dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019 E In this matter, this ground has been taken up in the Section 34 petition, and the High Court, noting that the landowner gave up his claim on loss of structure awarded at the rate of Rs. 50,000 by the Arbitrator, held that no further adjudication is necessary on this point. Therefore, no interference is required, and this appeal F also stands dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15482/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; G SLP (C) No. 15471/2019; SLP (C) No. 15448/2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/2019; SLP (C) No. 15486/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019; SLP (C) No. 21691/ 2019

p. 106 Copy page pinpoint

A In these matters, though this ground has been argued in the Section 34 petition, as this ground is factual, no patent illegality arises. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 6: That compensation for shifting expenseswas granted SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019 B In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15442-15443/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; C SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019 In these matters, though this ground has been argued in the Section 34 petition, as this ground is factual, no patent illegality arises. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 7: That arbitration costs were awarded D SLP (C) No. 15442-15443/2019; SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 14491/2019; SLP (C) No. 21657/2019; SLP (C) No. 9600/2019; SLP (C) No. 10210/2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/2019; SLP (C) No. 21662/2019; E SLP (C) No. 21691/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of in the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 21682/2019; SLP F (C) No. 9602/2019; SLP (C) No. 21687/2019; SLP (C) No. 21683/2019; SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15448/2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 37 appeals. Therefore, these appeals also stand G dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15478/2019; SLP (C) No. 15482/2019; SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/2019; SLP (C) No. 21673/2019; SLP (C) No. 15485/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21692/2019 H

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. TARSEM SINGH & ORS. 107 [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

In these matters, this ground has not been taken up in any of the A Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 8: That compensation was awarded based on post- notification sale deed SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15444-15445/2019; SLP (C) No. 14491/2019; SLP (C) No. 21664/2019; SLP B (C) No. 21671/2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21663/2019; SLP (C) No. 21695/2019; SLP (C) No. 21693/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 9602/2019; SLP (C) No. 9600/2019; SLP (C) No. 21687/2019; SLP (C) No. 21683/2019; SLP (C) No. 21689/2019; SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/ C 2019; SLP (C) No. 21666/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. Ground 9: That compensation was awarded based on sale deeds D of smaller plots of land SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 21666/2019; SLP (C) No. 21671/2019; SLP (C) No. 21670/2019; SLP (C) No. 21663/2019; SLP (C) No. 9602/2019; SLP (C) No. 21687/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 21683/2019; SLP (C) No. 21689/2019; E SLP (C) No. 9604/2019; SLP (C) No. 21696/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. F Ground 10: That compensation on account of severance of land was awarded SLP (C) No. 15470/2019; SLP (C) No. 15479/2019; SLP (C) No. 15471/2019 In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in G any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. SLP (C) No. 10210/2019 In this matter, this ground has not been taken in the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. H

p. 108 Copy page pinpoint

A SLP (C) No. 15485/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 15486/2019; SLP (C) No. 21691/2019 In these matters, though this ground has been taken in the Section 34 petition, no patent illegality arises. Therefore, these appeals B stand dismissed. Ground 11: That compensation on account of loss of business was awarded SLP (C) No. 15487/2019; SLP (C) No. 21675/2019

C In these matters, this ground has not been taken and argued in any of the Section 34 petitions. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. SLP (C) No. 15477/2019; SLP (C) No. 15474/2019; SLP (C) No. 15466/2019; SLP (C) No. 15446/2019; SLP (C) No. D 15447/2019; SLP (C) No. 21688/2019; SLP (C) No. 15471/ 2019; SLP (C) No. 15450/2019; SLP (C) No. 21690/2019; SLP (C) No. 21691/2019; SLP (C) No. 21692/2019 In these matters, though this ground has been argued in the Section 34 petition, no patent illegality arises. Therefore, these appeals stand dismissed. E

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.