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  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