LexSATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS versus AMRAO SINGH AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] ' 96' judgment in C. A. No. 416 of 1958 (Standard Vacuum Burmalo-Shlll Refining Co., Ltd. versUIJ Its Workmen) the compo- R•ftneri" Limil•a nents of a living wage are largely different from those v. of a fair wage. The difference in the living wage TluirWorkm"' standards of the class to which operatives generally belong and the class to which the clerical staff belongs Das Gupta]. I96z February :1. may produce much greater differences in the money value in the components of the requirement of Jiving wage as between the two classes than the difference in the money value of. the components of fair wage of the two classes. · There is no justification therefore for thinking that the living wage of the clerical staff is only 80% more than the living wage of the operatives and so no conclusion that the gap between the living wage and the actual wage is less in the case of clerks than in the case of operatives can be drawn from a considera- tion of the comparative wages received by them. We find nothing that would justify us in interfering with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the clerical staff should be awarded bonus at the same rate as the operatives. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. SATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. AMRAO SINGH AND OTHERS. (P. B. GAJENDRA\JADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Land Acquisition-Cis-Sutlij Jagir-Inalienable Land-Com- pensation, apportionment of-Interest, when payable-East Punjab Acquisition and Requisition of· Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, x948 (E.--P . .¢of x948), s. s~Land Acquisition Act, x894 (I of x894), H, z3, 3z, 34-lnterest Act, x839 (3z oj.r839) SS.I, Z. Lands in four villages forming part of the Cis-Sutlej Jagir were compulsorily acquired under the· East Punjab Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers} Act, 1948. At the time of the acquisition A was the holder of the jagir. Possession over one of the villages had been given to , 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 677 A's wife G in lieu of maintenance under a consent decree. The matter of payment of compensation was referred to an arbitrator. A claimed that he was entitled to the entire compensation amount as he was the present holder of the Jagir. A's son S claimed that the lands acquired were inalienable, that A merely had a life interest therein and that the compensation money should be deposited out of which A should get only the interest for his life. G claimed that she was entitled· to the entire compensation in respect of the lands over which she was in possession. All the claimants claimed interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking of possession to the date of payment of compensa- tion. The arbitrator held.:. (i) the acquired lands were inalienable and A merely had a life interest therein,_ (ii) S was entitled to a share in the compensation awarded, . (iii) the amount of compen- sation for the first three villages should not be deposited but should be divided between A and S in the proportion of 3/ 4th to 1/4th, (iv) the compensation for the fourth village should be deposited and the interest thereof be paid to G and after the death- of G the amount be divided between Aarn;j S half and half, and (v) the claimants were not entitled to anyi interest on the amount of compensation. On appeal the High Court confirmed the awards in toto. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. · Held, that the acquired lands formed part of a Cis-Sutlej Jagir which was inalienable, that A was merely a limited owner thereof and was not entitled to the entire amount of compensation and that the reversioners were also entitled to a share therein. The compensation amount could not be permanently deposited leav- ing the parties the right to enjoy only its income. Even if the equitable principle of s. 32, Land Acqnisition Act, r&;4, was applied it would not justify the permanent investment of the compensation amount. Section 32(1)(b) was intended to be applied provisi9nally for short perigds, where other lands had to be, pnrchased out of the compensation money but were not immedi- ately available and the money had to be invested as an interim measure till such lands were available. It was fair to divide the compensation money in respect of the first three villages half and half between A and S. In deciding the question of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.