REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO...................OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP)No.13648 of 2007)
Jeewan Dhar Jain (Dead) through
Lrs. & Ors. ..Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 18th of October, 2005,
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in Review Application No.86-
CII/2002 in Civil Revision No.3273/2001, Review
Application No. 87-CII/2002 in CR No.3275/2001,
Review Application No. 88-CII/2002 in
CR.No.3276/2001, Review Application No.
89-CII/2002 in CR No. 3277/2001, Review
1
Application No. 90-CII/2002 in CR No.3278/2001,
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 Land3
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