UNION OF INDIA versus PARMAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 25-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA v. PARMAL SINGH & ORS LOHIA 
675 
for payment of compensation to be determined in the A 
manner specified, ordinarily compensation shall have to 
be paid atthe·time of taking possession in pursuance of 
acquisition. By applying equitable principles, courts have 
.always awarded interest on the delayed payment of 
compensation with regard to acquisition of any property. B 
When a . requisitioned property is acquired,_ as 
possession had already been taken from the landholder, 
the compensation becomes payable from the date of 
acquisition. When a property is requisitioned, the land . 
owner is compensated for the denial of possession by c 
paying compensation based on the rent it would have 
fetched, had it not _been requisitioned. But once the 
property is acquired, the rent is stopped, as 
compensation base_d on open market value becomes 
payable against acq_uisition. Therefore while interest is o 
payable, it is not awarded from the date of requisition 
(taking over of possession) but only from the date of 
acquisition. Whenever the Arbitrator or High Court 
increases the compensation for the acquired land, the 
increase relates back to the date of acquisition as they E 
are merely doing ·what the Special Land Acquisition 
Officer ought to have done in the first instance. Therefore, 
interest is awardable ·on ·the increased amount also from 
the date of acquisition. [Para 9] [681-D-H; 682-A] 
. 1.3. In the instant case, the acquisition is of the year F 
1965. Though more than four decades have elapsed, the 
land owners are yet to get the compensation in entirety. 
When the Arbitrator awarded interest, it was not 
challenged by the appellant. It accepted the award of 
interest. Only when the High Court increased the amount G 
of compensation in the appeals filed by the landowners, 
the appellant chose to challenge, not the increase in 
compensation, but the award of interest. Therefore, the 
award of interest at 6% per annum on the compensation 
amount is upheld. [Paras 11 and 12] [684-F-H] 
H 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
..._ 
,: 
A 
Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India 1995 Supp (4) SCC 221; 
Girdhari v. Union of India 2005 (11) SCC 291; Satinder Singh . cot-
v. Umrao Singh AIR 1961 SC 908; Hirachand Kothari. v. State 
of Rajasthan 1985 (Supp.) SCC 17, relied on. 
B 
Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khos/a 1993 Supp (2) 
I-
SCC 149 and Union of India v. Chajju Ram 2003 (6) SCC 
I.-
568, distinguished. 
~
.. 
Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi 1996 (6) SCC 44, 
--J._ 
~
referred to. 
c 
Case law Reference: 
1995 Supp (4) SCC 221 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
2005 (11) sec 291 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
L 
D 
AIR 1961 SC 908 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
1985 (Supp.) sec 11 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
... 
i-
1996 (6) sec 44 
Referred to. 
Para 6 
+ 
I 
E 
1993 supp (2) sec 149 Distinguished. 
Para 6 
2003 (5) sec 568 
Distinguished. 
Para 7 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
2319-2327 of 2001. 
1. 
' 
I-
From the final Order dated 1.4.1999 of the High Court' of 
4--
~ 
I 
Judicature at Allahbad in C.M.W.P. Nos. 24667, 24668, 24669 
of 1988 and 557, 560, 4939, 4940, 4941 and 11436 of 1990. 
r 
G 
• 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 332-336, 354-359 Nos. 6789-6790, 6792-6296, 
I-
--( 
6791, 6804-6806, 6826-6839, 6798-6803, 6808-6824 of 2008. 
r-
I 
' 
H 
' 
~ 
I 
J 
UNION OF INDIA v. PARMAL SINGH & ORS LOHIA 
677 
t" 
S.P. Singh, Sunil Gupta, Rekha Pandey, Rajni Ohri Lal, Raj 
A 
Kumar Tanwar, S.W.A. Qadri, B.K. Prasad, Shreekant N. Terdal, 
Sushma Suri, Anil Katiyar, Shakeel Ahmed, Devendra Kumar, 
K.K. Mohan, T.N. Singh, Manoj Dwivedi, G.V. Rao and 
Kamlendra Mishra for the appearlng parties. 
B 
..,, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
'X 
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, J. 1. The lands of respondents in. 
village Mola Agri (now district Ghaziabad) were reqaisitioned 
by the Central Government in 1963 under section 29 of the c 
Defence of India Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act'). The said 
requisitioned lands were subsequently acquired under section 
36 of the Act in the year 1965. The Special Land Acquisition 
officer, Meerut, determined the compensation payable to the 
respondents in the year 1966 (varying between Rs.2400 ~nd 
Rs.3625 per bigha by adopting belting method of valuation). 
D 
Not being satisfied with the compensation determined by him, 
<( 
the respondents sought reference to arbitration under section 
~ 
37(2) of the Act, for determination of proper compensation. The 
Central Government appointed different Arbi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.