High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/8073/2017disposed of

Lakha Singh And Others v. Sub Divisional Magistrate And ORS

2023-01-31Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan9 pages

!"#"$% # $& '()

#$% !& '

*% +,* -.- ( ) & * +, %- !! & * &,

!.,(*# & & , %- //// .-)/ '

01% % +

! #*- - 0 # 1-!-,2234 ,5223-56, !! # -

7 -

8 !

.%+

- - !:;8 -, 2<34 ,52<3-56 !, -=! %!! $ -+ ! :< - - $46 2<3-; 27# $% !& >-+> -= 1!!-,+ >9#8 ; 2;

0<, , ?> - 7 - .4<6 2<3- #*- !

- 0 223 - ; +

3, -%!8

- ! !! %- ! ; - -+ - .4 64#6

2<3-; : #+ 8#

; :! - +1 $"$$ "

$ $ 2'3 '#4-"$52 $ 2'#) 6/61 - 7, ;#8 - @ 2<3 - ;

-! - ! 0 - ! #+ % - ;

- #8 !! # -= 1!!-

#; %- ! : #+

- - -

223- !+ 7 - - -

223-

%8!+ !- + - + 1 '( $ &'"#4 ,"4"

3 *8# 9 $ 2 '" 3'

5# ,"4"

611

3 9 # # -% -;

-! !! ; % ;!# -= #8!:;88 9 9 ---+ - , - ! - ! !!!- + *- 7- # ! ;-=! 2<3- ! - @ 2<3 - %

-= -,20 !! !8! -= 2<3- 7% -;-!! $% A-

1 *8#0 $'$ $ - 0 '5"$53 $"$$ "

$ 2'#)

/71 /"3"01:!

- @ 2<3-

-!0 1 9 B

! ; (2 - #!;)

"# $

% $

'( $ )

& )

* !

"# $

-**

( / )

(

/ ) " $

% !

(

, ,

( 2'3 *

0 ( 2'3 ( 2'3

5 6

( 2'3

' # 6 # '(

* .

(

( 2'3

*# .

/ *

# #

* )

( 2*3 6

% * 2'3

* 2*3

7* + - *8#0 $'$ $ -

'5"$5+#!

# /#&;'

1 ; !

#8 +1 '#4 -"$52 $ 2'#+!

#/#&;'

19; !

) "52. 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 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.

- 2 7 +1 %; .%+ !

; !

# %-

#;22 < 7 +1

"$ 0"52< (#& 2'"

($ "

3-'" '

=&>20&3 "#2 $ $ 2')/1 /"3"01?7 !

!+ !

-%!8 - - #8:1 *8#0 $'$ $ - 0 '5"$5+# !

#/#&;'

--!

# ( = ) "7.We have considered the submissions advanced. In Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, this Court, though in a different context, had restricted the operation of the judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India and had granted the

3 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 and Steel Forging v. Union of India i.e. 28-3-2008. 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 1-1-2014), 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 2013 Act."

'' 9%; * + - #%,! ; !

! -= 2<3- 7 =! -

- - 0

223- !+ !8 %!#! - 0 223-

%!#! - !!!81% # % !; ;!

! %! - 4646 223 -

- -#+ - +1 -

"#5 '23- 0 (5 '"3

, )/1-:, ;; !

) C07!; -+ ;

223- #--+ -# ;#*- ++ - #8 - # +

;- ; +8 # C !!!8DE;!

- C !!!8D # !#

- A!

% $! $%! + 8,;C !!!8D# !8 !!

C(#!-(!-8D, # %

!!;;

)> -(* ) '889

+ (*'

)

*;2'32

+ -*; <

= 2'3 .

) , )

) >:

(** 23

= 6

'23

(* 23

*;23

+ -*; <

= 2'3 = 2*3 ???

23 )

;

@*A'B $$ (8

9 !

!; ; !

--! - #- -; - 4 6 223->- # % -%!#!- ; % ,# - ; - 0 223- ;!

+ !!!8 7 +1-'" '

=&>20&3 "

2 $ $ 2'+#!

# /#&;'

)

24. Leaving aside the facts in the instant case for a while, if in a matter as against the determination of the market value by the SLAO, the land loser had referred to the exemplar sale deeds and seeks higher compensation than prescribed in the guidance value, and in that circumstance, if no reasons are assigned by the learned Arbitrator for such determination and either approves the SLAO award or awards a lesser amount than the actual entitlement, in such circumstance the arbitration process which is thrust on the land loser should not be an impediment and limited interference should not be a reason to deny the just and fair compensation.

In such cases while examining the award in the limited scope under Section of Act, 1996, the Court is required to take note as to whether the evidence available on record has been adverted to and has been taken note by the Arbitrator in determining the just compensation failing which it will fall foul of Section 31(3) and amount to patent illegality.

2 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion.

In such event an error if found, though it would not be possible for the Court entertaining the petition under Section 34 or for the appellate court under Section 37 of Act 1996 to modify the award and alter the compensation as it was open to the court in the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the old Land Acquisition Act or an appeal under Section 54 of that act, it should certainly be open to the court exercising power under Section 34 of Act, 1996 to set aside the award by indicating reasons and remitting the matter to the Arbitrator to reconsider the same in accordance with law.

The said exercise can be undertaken to the limited extent without entering into merits where it is seen that the Arbitrator has on the face of the award not appropriately considered the material on record or has not recorded reasons for placing reliance on materials available on record in the background of requirement under RFCTLARR Act, 2013."

'( 9 - , + ! ; % # !;

< 9 %; #%,

3 ;!#8 + -- -;!; 3 7 !

@.-A # $& '()84B E ?

) ? E #!

) ?