Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC

Decided
26 August 2022
Judges listed
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 73 · 2022 INSC 876

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 28.01.2010/18.05.2010/07.03.2012 passed in the respective first appeals, dated 12.08.2013 in RFA No. 2948/2007 and dated 2.8.2013 passed in RFA No. 4975/2010, the particulars of which are as under, determining/awarding the compensation for the acquired lands in question at Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre, the original landowners have preferred the present appeals.

pp. 74–78, margin E

2

At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre in the respective first appeals except RFA No. 4975/2010, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010). So far as Civil Appeal arising out of impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 2.8.2013 in RFA No. 4975/2010 is concerned, the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/2006 decided on 2.3.2009).

p. 78, margin A

3

It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the High Court in the cases of Kapoor Singh (supra) & Surjit Singh (supra) were the subject matter of appeals before this Court and in the case of Kapoor Singh (supra) and other allied first appeals, this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), payable by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with interest and solatium as prescribed under the Statute from the date of the orders passed by the High Court (vide common order dated 15.01.2014 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 – Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).

p. 78, margin C

4

It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appeals are similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of Kapoor Singh (supra) & Surjit Singh (supra) respectively. Therefore, the present appeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the cases of Kapoor Singh (supra) & Surjit Singh (supra) by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre respectively. However, there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to deny the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment and order/s passed by the High Court till the present appeals (special leave petitions) are preferred before this Court.

pp. 78–79, margin E

5

In view of the undisputed facts, all these appeals are partly allowed. Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in all these appeals where the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh (supra) except Civil appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in RFA No. 4975/2010 in which the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh (supra). We enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in RFA No. 4975/2010. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of orders passed by the High Court. However, the original landowners – claimants shall not be entitled to interest from the date of the orders passed by the High Court till filing of the appeals before this Court. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority within three months from today before the Reference Court.

p. 79, margin A

6

All these appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

p. 79, margin D