LexJEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [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 - Com- pensation - 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 Consti- tution 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 remit- ted 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 ac- quired 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 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. 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 c~se. c Appellants-landowners relying on the observation in Constitution Bench case in *Gurpreet Singh v Union of In- dia that "but if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claim- ant 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 appro- priation, 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 observa- tions of this Court made in the Constitution Bench deci- sion. G Respondent-State contended that although the Con- stitution Bench decision had approved the Prem Nath ,.- Kapoor's case, but in addition to that had also made cer- tain 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 JEEWAN DHAR JAIN THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v . 973 ... STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 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 reject- ing 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 Consti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.