Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors

Review Application No. 91-CII/2002 in CR

No.3280/2001, Review Application No.92-CII/2002

in CR No.3281/2001 and Review Application No.

93-CII/2002 in CR No.3282/2001 by which the

bunch of review applications filed at the

instance of claimants-landowners-appellants in

the connected civil revision petitions was

disposed of. A bunch of 13 civil revision

petitions was decided by the learned Single

Judge vide judgment dated 25th of October,

2001. All the revision petitions were filed by

the Haryana Urban Development Authority,

Gurgaon, for whose benefit the land belonging

to the claimants-landowners was acquired.

Similarly, a bunch of 15 civil revision

petitions was decided by another learned Single

Judge of the High Court which was filed by the

Food Corporation of India, for whose benefit

the land was acquired. In these cases, the

learned Single Judge of the High Court followed

the proposition of law laid down in judgment

2 dated 25th of October, 2001 passed in Review

Application No. 113-CII/2002 in CR No.

2842/2002. Vide an order dated 20th of May,

2001, the Executing Court allowed the

application of the claimants-appellants in

Review Application No. 113-CII/2002 in CR No.

2842/2002 holding that she 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 solatium and in the last

towards principal amount. The order dated 10th

of May, 2001 passed by the Executing Court was

challenged by the Haryana Urban Development

Authority before the High Court in Civil

Revision Petition No.2842 of 2001. Similar

revision petitions were filed in other

connected matters. One of the questions that

arose before the learned Single Judge of the

High Court for adjudication was as follows:-

"Whether claimants/landowners do have the right to appropriate the amount deposited by the Land

3 Acquisition Collector as per their own discretion or the same has to be paid in view of the Scheme of the Act?"

3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court

relying upon the law laid down by this court in

the case of Prem Nath Kapoor and Anr. Vs.

National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.

and & Ors. [JT 1995 (9) SC 23] held that the

claimants were not entitled to appropriate the

amount deposited by the Collector at their

discretion and appropriation and payment shall

be made strictly in accordance with the law

laid down by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's

case (supra). Accordingly, the aforesaid

question was answered in favour of the

acquiring authorities and against the

claimants. The present review applications were

filed by the claimants-appellants praying for

review of the aforesaid decision of the learned

Single Judge qua the aforesaid question. While

deciding the review applications, the High

4 Court in the impugned order made the following

observations -

"In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra) and also having noticed the same in M/s. Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate, we are not inclined to take any different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has placed specific reliance upon Prem Nath Kapoor's case and as per law laid down by the Apex Court, no exception to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge can be taken.

Consequently, we hold that in the land acquisition proceedings, the claimants cannot be allowed to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment has to be made strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor's case (supra).

Holding as above, the review cases were dismissed."

4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants-

appellants moved this Court and notices were

issued. Subsequently, similar issue which was

decided in Prem Nath Kapoor's case, namely,

Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, SLP)No.8408

of 2003 was referred to Constitution Bench of

5 this Court by a three-Judge and finally the

question referred before the Constitution Bench

was decided in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of

India reported in 2006 (8) SCC 457. After the

above question was decided by the Constitution

Bench, the matter has now come up for hearing

before us. Mr.Ghosh learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants had drawn our

attention at paragraph 36 of the aforesaid

Constitution Bench decision at page 478,

particularly the portion, namely, "but if there

is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or

decree-holder can seek to apply the rule of

appropriation in respect of that amount, first

towards interest and costs and then towards the

principal, unless the decree otherwise

directs."

5. Relying on this observation, Mr.Ghosh

submitted that the ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor's

case on appropriation being at different stages

was justified though if at a particular stage

6 there was a shortfall, the awardee-decree

holder would be entitled to appropriate the

same on the general principle of appropriation,

first towards interest then towards costs and

then towards the principal, unless, of course,

the deposit is indicated to be towards

specified heads by the judgment debtor while

making the deposit intimating the decree holder

of his intention. Relying on this observation

of this Court made in the Constitution Bench,

Mr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellants submitted that this aspect of

the matter not having been considered by the

High Court either in the civil revision case or

in the review petitions, it would be fit and

proper for this Court to send the cases back to

the Executing Court for disposal in the light

of the aforesaid observations of this Court

made in the Constitution Bench decision as

referred to herein above. This submission of

Mr.Ghosh was contested by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents and he

7 submitted that although the Constitution Bench

decision had approved the Prem Nath Kapoor's

case, but in addition to that had also made the

observation it would be fit and proper that the

matter may be remitted back to the High Court

for decision in the light of the observations

made by this Court in the aforesaid

Constitution Bench without sending the same

before the Executing Court, as the execution

cases have already been disposed of by the

Executing Court. However, at the time of

consideration, the High Court shall also take

into consideration the observations made by the

Constitution Bench as noted herein above be

applicable to the present cases.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and after noticing the judgment of the

Constitution Bench particularly the

observations on which reliance was placed by

the learned counsel for the parties, we are of

the view that the impugned order be set aside

8 and the matters may be remitted back to the

High Court for decision in the light of the

observations of this Court made in the

Constitution Bench decision as referred to

herein above. Accordingly, the impugned orders

of the High Court rejecting the review

petitions are set aside and the appeal is

allowed to the extent indicated above. The High

Court is requested to decide the review

petitions as early as possible preferably

within six months from the date of supply of

the copy of this order. It is needless to say

that in the event the High Court feels that

while deciding the review petitions, it would

be appropriate for it to take up the civil

revision cases as well, it will be open to the

High Court to take up the review petitions also

along with the civil revision cases treating

the orders passed by the High Court in revision

as set aside.

9

7. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside

the impugned orders and the appeal is allowed

to the extent indicated above. We make it

clear that we have not gone into the arguments

advanced by the parties on the question whether

the Constitution Bench decision would be

applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the case and it is kept to be taken into

consideration by the High Court in the manner

indicated above. The appeal is thus allowed to

the extent indicated above. There will be no

order as to costs.

................................................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

New Delhi; ................................................J. July 14, 2008. [AFTAB ALAM]

10