Subodh Singh vs Union Of India

2024 INSC 458 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6458 OF 2024 (@ PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 29970 OF 2017)

SUBODH SINGH PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31 st August, 2017,

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby, the

Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein praying inter alia for issuing directions to the

respondents to pay additional compensation for the entire land area, subject matter of

the Notification dated 12th December, 2008, issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Indian

Railways Act1, 1989, at the rate higher than 5% per month and further pay interest @

18% per annum for delay in payment from 30 th March, 2011, i.e. the date on which this

Court had passed an order in Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 2011 2 titled “Dedicated Freight Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.06.12 Corridor Corporation of India Vs. Subodh Singh”, till the actual date of payment 12:02:31 IST Reason:

1 For short the ‘Act’ 2 (2011) 11 SCC 100 1 in respect of the award dated 08th February, 2010.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents had acquired

land in Village Kakrahi, Tehsil and District Auriya, Uttar Pradesh vide Notifications

dated 10th June, 2008 and 16th December, 2008 issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the

Act. An award was declared on 08th February, 2010 only in respect of the land that

the respondents required. As a result, a parcel of land admeasuring 0.0624 Hectare

was left out. Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant filed a Writ Petition 3 before

the High Court for quashing the award dated 08 th February, 2010, which was allowed

vide order dated 12th May, 2010. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed a

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 4 before this Court, which was allowed vide

judgment dated 30th March, 2011 holding inter alia that the acquisition in question had

not lapsed and having regard to the second proviso to section 20F(2) of the Act, the

land owners would be entitled to an additional compensation for the delay in making

the payment in terms of the award dated 08 th February, 2010, at a rate not less than

5% of the value of the award for each month of delay.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 issued a certificate in

respect of the entire parcel of land in terms of the Notification dated 12 th December,

2008, again leaving an area of 0.0624 Hectare as free from acquisition proceedings.

Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed another petition 5 before the 3 Writ C. No. 14945/2010 4 SLP(Civil) No. 26410 of 2010 (i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2794/2011) 5 Writ C. No. 63467/2011 2 High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20th September, 2016 and the

respondents were directed to provide compensation to the appellant for 0.0624

Hectare of land along with additional compensation within a period of two months.

5. On 19th November, 2016, the respondents prepared a bank draft for a sum of

₹ 2,74,56,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand) stating

that the same was in respect of the compensation payable to the appellant in terms of

the order passed by the High Court on 20 th September, 2016. While calculating the

additional compensation, the respondent no.2 confined the same to a period of two

months for the delayed period.

6. Aggrieved by the compensation offered by the respondents limiting the delay

to only two months, the appellant approached the High Court by filing yet another

petition6 claiming that he was entitled to compensation for a period of 84 months,

which would come to Rs.10,23,28,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Three Lakh and

Twenty Eight Thousand), on which the impugned order dated 31 st August, 2017, has

been passed observing that the appellant ought to approach the Arbitrator for

determining the additional compensation, by invoking Section 20F (1) of the Act.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents have adopted a

pick and choose policy in the instant case. While they have paid additional

compensation for a period of delay of 66 months to one Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors., who

were similarly situated persons like the appellant and their land was also acquired

6 Writ C No. 39875/2017 3 under the very same award, in the case of the appellant the respondents have

arbitrarily confined the payment towards the delay only to two months, instead of 84

months.

8. We have perused the record and heard the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the parties.

9. At the outset, we may note that the order dated 18 th September, 2017, passed

by the Competent Authority refers to an order dated 19 th July, 2017, passed by the

High Court in a Writ Petition7 filed by Kamla Devi and others and goes on to record

that after completion of formalities of publication, some portion of the land

admeasuring 0.0890 Hectare had been left out, as the same was not required for the

subject project. Subsequently, another award 8 was declared in respect of the left out

area and additional compensation was paid to the land owners @ 5% per month of

the award for a period of 66 months, i.e. from 19 th April, 2012 to 12th September, 2017.

In the light of the above, the appellant herein is justified in arguing that he cannot be

treated differently and in his case, the respondents ought not to have confined the

delayed payment on the awarded amount for the left out portion of land to only two

months.

10. The aforesaid submission is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents

on a plea that no such direction was issued either by this Court or the High Court

permitting compensation for the delayed period beyond two months, for which

7 WP No. 65267 of 2012 8 Award No. 1/2011-12, dated 19 April, 2012 th

4 reliance is sought to be placed on the order dated 20 th September, 2016 passed by

the High Court.

11. The aforesaid submission is taken note of only to be turned down. The period

of two months referred to by the High Court in its order dated 20 th September, 2016

was only for making payment of the amount. Not that any direction was issued to the

respondents to confine the payment of additional compensation only to a period of

two months. In fact, the order passed by this Court on 30 th March, 2011 is crystal

clear and needs no interpretation. Highlighting certain anomalies noticed in Chapter

IV A of the Act, particularly Section 20F, this Court referred to the proviso to Section

20F (2) and observed as follows:

“12. (iii) The second proviso to section 20F (2) requires payment of additional compensation for the delay in making of the award, at the rate of not less than five percent of the value of award, for each month of delay. This vests unguided discretion in the competent authority or the Arbitrator to award additional compensation at any higher rate and gives room for unnecessary litigation at the instance of “entitled persons” claiming higher percentages as additional compensation. It is necessary to consider whether specifying a fixed monthly rate of increase would serve the ends of justice better instead of indicating a minimum rate per month.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

“13. In view of our finding that the acquisition has not lapsed, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismiss the challenge to the acquisition. It is however made clear that in view of the delay in making the award beyond one year, the first respondent shall be entitled to additional compensation as provided under the second proviso to section 20F (2) of the Act. Parties to bear their respective costs.”

12. It is apparent from the above that the appellant would be entitled to additional

compensation for the delay in making the award @ not less than 5% of the value of

the award for each month’s delay. In our opinion, there was no reason for the High 5 Court to have relegated the appellant to initiate any arbitration proceedings for

determining the additional compensation when the order passed by this Court had

clarified the manner in which compensation would be calculated and paid for the

delay in making the award for the left out parcel of land.

13. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds. The appellant

is held entitled to additional compensation for the left out portion of land at least @

5% of the value of the award for a period spreading over 84 months. Needless to

state that the amount already paid by the respondents towards the delay, i.e., for a

period of two months, shall be duly adjusted. The remaining amount shall be released

by the respondents within eight weeks from today. Besides the aforesaid amount, the

appellant shall also be entitled to simple interest on the outstanding amount

calculated @ 7% per annum from the date the said amount became due and payable,

till the same is realized.

14. The appeal is allowed on the above terms while leaving the parties to bear

their own expenses.

.....…...........…………………......J. [HIMA KOHLI]

..................……………………...J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

NEW DELHI MAY 16, 2024 PS

6