Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Cost On Union Govt For Arguing On Issue Already Settled By Supreme Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Union Government for arguing against the established legal position that additional market value per se is part of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat said, "since the petitioners have unnecessarily gone to the extent of contesting on an issue of law which already stands decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court long ago, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be burdened with an appropriate cost; so as to make them realize their mistake in wasting valuable time of the Court."

These observations were made while hearing the revision plea of Union government under Article 227 of Constitution for setting aside the order, whereby the application filed by the Decree Holder under Section 152 CPC has been accepted and the application for recalling the order has been dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to make payment in favour of decree holder by the Executing Court of Additional District Judge, Pathankot.

 Facts in Brief

The land of one Harbhajan Kaur was acquired way back in the year 1987. The award having been passed by the Collector, the amount of compensation was enhanced by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, in 1990, vide which the market value of the acquired land was enhanced at the rate of Rs.1400 per marla along with 30% solatium, 9% interest for the first year and 15% interest thereafter till the date of payment. 

In 2004, the union through defence ministry and defence estate officer, Gurdaspur had filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court, however, the said appeal was dismissed and the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was upheld. Still further, the Court had granted the benefit of additional market value in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The union had filed the execution petition, in which, the calculations were filed claiming therein the market value at the rate of Rs.1400, per marla, additional market value and the interest on both these amounts. The petitioners filed the objection that the interest is not available on the component of additional market value. The said objection had been rejected by the Executing Court.

It was argued by the Union that the lower Court has gone wrong in law in awarding the interest even on the amount of additional market value. Since, this particular amount is not the part of compensation, therefore, no interest could have been awarded on the same.

Considering the submissions, the bench observed that it "does not find any ground to interfere in the matter."

The Supreme Court has clarified the position in the cases of Gurpreet Singh Versus Union of India, 2006 AIR SCW 5813, and Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516, that the additional market value, per se, is part of the compensation, it added.

Justice Sehrawat said, "Therefore, the land owner shall be; ipso facto; entitled to the interest even on the amount of additional market value."

While dismissing the plea the Court imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 stating that, "the petitioners deserve to be burdened with an appropriate cost; so as to make them realize their mistake in wasting valuable time of the Court," for unnecessarily going to the extent of contesting on an issue of law which already stands decided by the Supreme Court long ago.

Appearance: Arun Gosain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 03

Case Title: Union of India and another v. Harbhajan Kaur and others

Click here to read/download the order.