Jangir Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

M.S. Liberhan, J. (Oral)

This is a revision arising out of an order dated 9.5.1988 by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, declining to amended the award.

Succinctly, the facts are that the land in dispute was acquired vide notification dated 3.3.1978 and the Additional District Judge admittedly decided the reference under section 18 on 9.10.1982 against which some of the claimants came in appeal to the High Court. The High Court vide judgment dated 30.3.1987 enhanced the compensation by allowing Regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1983 against a judgment vide which all the references under section 18 with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 3.3.1978 were disposed of.

The sole claim made by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge rejection whereof has been impugned in the revision was that their case having been decided by the Additional District Judge on 9.10.1982 they were entitled to the solatium and interest under the provisions of Central Act No. 68 of 1984 as the Amended Act came into force though on 27.9.1984 but with effect from 30th April, 1982. The Additional District Judge declined to amend the award on the ground that the main judgment vide which all the connected reference were disposed of has been modified by the High Court, consequently, he has no jurisdiction to review. I am afraid this reasoning cannot be sustained. The petitioners had never come in appeal. The question of merger of their judgment in the judgement of the High Court in regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1983 does not arise because no appeal having been filed by them, the judgment had become final so far as the applicants were concerned. It was the incumbent duty of the Additional District Judge to give the statutory relief to which the petitioners were entitled to in terms of section 23(2) i.e. 30% solatium and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum subsequently; interest to be paid from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered by the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down in the Union of India v. Raghbir Singh (Civil Appeal No. 283940 of 1985) decided on 16th May, 1989, wherein it has been observed that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of solatium and interest under section 30 subsection (2) in respect of an award made by the Collector or the District Judge is amended in term of section 23(2) to the effect that the petitioner shall be entitled to 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum onwards till the date of payment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has made an oral request that the enhanced compensation in terms of Regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1983 decided on 30.3.1987 be granted to them as the State cannot discriminate between the two citizen with respect to the market value of the land acquired by the same notification and market value whereof had been assessed under the same judgment which was later on modified by the High Court. I am afraid I cannot grant this relief in these proceedings as there was no such prayer in this application nor any appropriate remedy for the relief has been taken. The petitions will be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings to get the enhanced compensation and this order of mine will not prejudice their rights for the same. I hope the State instead of relying on the technicalities would pay the petitioners the compensation paid to the similarly situated landowners. The State should be more responsible and fair towards the citizens than an ordinary litigant. It has been observed in Nand Ram and ors. v. The State of Haryana, 1988 Punjab Law Journal 505, by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the State cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification compensation at the reasonable market value reflected in the compensation awarded to the landowners for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.