Supreme Court Asks Punjab Govt To Pay Rs 5 Crore Compensation To Son Of Freedom Fighter Whose Property Was Confiscated By British

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that value of the land belonging to Mr. Singh would be more than the meagre amount of Rs. 72050. In view of the same the compensation amount calculated by the Government of Punjab at Rs. 72,050 was increased to Rs. 5 crores.

"It was further submitted that keeping into account that the respondent's father was a freedom fighter, generosity was shown to the respondent and an amount of Rs. 72050 was granted as compensation. However,...the amount of Rs. 72050 does not represent the value of the land belonging to the land of the respondent's father that was confiscated…Taking into account that the respondent is entitled to be compensated suitably for the land belonging to his father, we direct the State of Punjab to pay an amount of Rs. 5 crores to the respondent as full and final consideration within a period of 8 weeks from today."

Factual Background

Mr. S. Sampuran Singh had taken part in the national movement against the British Government, as a result of which his property, now situated in Pakistan, was confiscated. On 11.12.1948, he submitted a representation to the Government of Punjab informing the State that 50 acres of agricultural land belonging to him was confiscated and he sought restoration of the property. On 18.07.1958, the Chief Secretary of the State responded and asked him to provide information regarding the national movement he was a part of. Mr. Singh sent a letter on 25.07.1958 furnishing such details stating that he had taken part in the Satyagraha movement started by Mahatma Gandhi after the Second World War and was also jailed along with Gopi Chand Bharagv, Mulk Raj and others. By his letter he further informed the Government that he was called by the Commissioner of Multan when the order was passed to confiscate his land in Pakistan. Thereafter, he passed away in August, 1958. His widow discovered the correspondence and on 03.09.1979 submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of the State seeking restoration of property in lieu of land that was confiscated by the British. After checking the veracity of the request, on 28.11.1986, the Financial Commissioner passed an order holding that the respondent would be entitled to land of 11 acres and 5.5 kanals valued at the rate of Rs. 1500/acre, which would amount to Rs. 17300. The Financial Commissioner categorically stated in the order that it is not possible to disbelieve that no land of Sampuran Singh was confiscated. A memo was issued by the concerned Government Department by way of which an amount of Rs. 72,050 was sanctioned to be paid to the respondent in lieu of 50 acres of land. The respondent filed a writ petition aggrieved by the paltry compensation amount. In the said petition allotment of 50 acres of land was sought and in the alternative compensation on the basis of market value of the 50 acres of land was prayed for. The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and directed allotment of alternate land to the respondent. In appeal, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the Single Judge.

Contentions raised by the appellant

Advocate, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab submitted that Mr. Sampuran Singh had claimed 50 acres of land confiscated by the erstwhile British Government. He had made a representation to this effect on 11.12.1948. In August, 1958 he passed away. His wife found the said correspondence and decided to pursue the matter.

It was submitted that neither the verification of the ownership of the land was concluded by the Government, nor could the respondents independently prove that they had title over the confiscated property. In the light of the same, she assailed the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the Government of Punjab had accepted that the land was confiscated. She asserted that the compensation was given merely on the consideration that Mr. Sampuran Singh was a freedom fighter.

"Where the High Court says that the Govt has come to the conclusion that the land was confiscated is wrong according to us. The verification was not concluded. They have not proved title to the property. As a benefit of doubt, at our benevolence we treated the land as abandoned and not confiscated land and calculated the land 50 acres as 11 acres and market rate at that time was granted. This was done in 1968", she submitted.

She further claimed that the name of the owners and particulars of the concerned property did not match with official records.

Referring to the documents on record, Justice Rao stated that the Government of Punjab had indeed admitted that the respondent was eligible for compensation. Therefore, the scrutiny of the court was limited to the issue of valuation of the property.

"This is the order by which sanction of payment of Rs.72050 was given, where it says that amount should be paid after verification. Then he filed a WP…Let us see the reply to WP…You have admitted that he is eligible, the only issue was the valuation of the land - at market value or not… When you say you give the benefit of doubt, it means you are accepting his case."

Ms. Rohatgi emphasised -

"May I put it this way that we had taken a benevolent view as he claimed he had participated in the freedom movement. So we treated that land as abandoned land."

Justice Rao remarked, "Question is this, why did you give him the benefit of doubt?"

Ms. Rohatgi reiterated, "He was a freedom fighter so we did not want to take a strict view."

Justice Rao stated that in every order shown to the Bench, Ms Rohatgi had submitted that the respondent could not prove ownership, yet the Government extended the benefit of doubt to him. So, the determination is no longer on the issue of the entitlement to compensation, but only whether the respondent is entitled to the market value of the concerned property or not.

Justice Rao asked the respondent, "You have not been able to prove that any land was there in Pakistan."

Contentions raised by the respondent

Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the same had been proved. He took the Court's attention to the letter of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Punjab dated 18.07.1958, which indicates that land belonging to the respondent's father was assumed in the year 1942 for not being loyal to the Crown. By way of the said letter the respondent's father was directed to furnish information relating to the national movement in which he participated. He argued that -

"The letter is an acknowledgment that he had land and the land was taken from him. The only thing was the procedural issue regarding name etc."

He apprised the Bench, that Mr. Sampuran Singh had written back to the Chief Secretary with the requisite particulars. Thereafter, he passed away in August, 1958. The compensation was not disbursed. He submitted that his widow found the correspondence in the mid 70s and initiated the second series of correspondence. It was emphasised that at this juncture, the Government of Punjab took an u-turn to state that they did not have any record that the concerned property belonged to Mr. Sampuran Singh.

"...at which point this ghost is suddenly raised that we do not know it is your land without checking any of the previous correspondences. That saga is the one that is culminating now."

It was vehemently refuted that some kind of charity had been extended by the Government because he was a freedom fighter. He asserted that the respondent was entitled to the compensation. He also expressed disappointment about the meagre value of the compensation determined by the Government.

"This is not some kind of a begging bowl that this gentleman's family has come up with. He is a Wing Commander, he is not just seeking some benefit. They have said that in our records we don't have the 1958 letter, therefore we are giving you the benefit of doubt. It is an insult to calculate this compensation at this small paltry amount. Our writ petition, first prayer is for land and in alternative we sought for compensation. Single Judge and Division Bench are ad idem on the fact that the 1958 letter is an acknowledgement and therefore you have to give my land. The present market value of 50 acres in those areas would come to close to 200 crores."

Ms. Rohtagi submitted that the land was considered as abandoned land and not confiscated land for calculating compensation.

"As they were not able to prove owners, the land was considered as abandoned land and not confiscated land."

Justice Rao stated that a perusal of the letter dated 18.07.1958 makes it clear that there was admission on the part of the Government that the concerned land was confiscated .

Ms. Rohatgi contended, "We have denied that (letter)."

Perturbed, Justice Rao noted -

"You have denied that letter as if he has manufactured it. (You say) Your record has no such letter. Your record does not have anything at all. There was a delay, he says after 1958. Pay him 5 crores…There has to be some reasonable amount."

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Court agreed with the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, that the land belonging to the respondent's father was confiscated, and the same was admitted by the Government of Punjab. In view thereof, it stated that the respondent was entitled to compensation. Considering that it is too late to award equivalent land in Jalandhar as had been prayed by the Petitioner and granted by the Single Judge, the Court decided to enhance the compensation fixed by the Government at Rs. 72,050 to Rs. 5 crore.

"After hearing Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel for the respondent, and after perusing the documents on record we are in agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the High Court, that land belonging to the respondent's father in the present territory of Pakistan was confiscated. The documents on record would also show that the Govt. of Punjab had also accepted the confiscation. An attempt has been made by the appellant to argue that no proof was submitted by the respondent regarding the particulars of land that was confiscated."

[Case Title: State of Punjab and Anr. v. Paramprit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. C.A. No. 2149 of 2010]