874 SUPREME COURT[2022]REPORTS4 S.C.R. 874 [2022] 4 S.C.R. A HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022) B SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of – Held: While determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the High Court relied upon its earlier decisions C in the cases of Surjit Singh & Kapoor Singh – Aforesaid decisions of the High Court were the subject matter of appeals before Supreme Court wherein the compensation was further enhanced – Landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated – Accordingly, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners D is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in C.A. arising out of RFA No.1614 of 2000 and by Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals – Further, original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation – However, they shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the interest under the Act from the E date of respective judgments and orders passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in Supreme Court. Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. Common order of Supreme Court dtd. 15.01.2014 passed in F Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – relied on.

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Decision of High Court dtd. 2.3.2009 in RFA No. 3004/2006; Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab & Another G Decision of High Court dtd. 28.01.2010 in RFA No. 2348/1998 – referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022. H 874 HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 875 ETC. ETC. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2012 of the High A Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No. 3941-3949, 3952, 3953, 4485 of 2007 and 1448, 2871, 3974 of 2008. With Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6743, 6734-6739 of 2022 B Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh Pillania, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Diwan Singh Chauhan, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Amit Kumar Saroha, Ravindra Bana, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja, Kanishak Bunderwal, C Ashok K. Mahajan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi Dhankhar, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. D 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012 / 02.03.2009 / 09.11.2009 Epassed in the respective first appeals, the particulars of which are as under:- Sl. Particulars RFA No. Date of Order Section 4 No. Notification

date 1. Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3941/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 F Punjab 2. Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3942/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab 3. Ajaib Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3943/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 4. Gian Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3944/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 G Punjab and Anr. 5. Amirk Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3945/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 6. Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3946/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 7. Bakhtaur Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3947/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. H 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. A 1. Bachan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. 3948/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 State of Punjab 2. Labh Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and 3949/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 3. Ajmer Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3952/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab B 4. Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 3953/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 5. Tarlochan Singh and Ors. Vs. State 4485/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 of Punjab and Ors. 6. Gurdev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 1448/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab and Anr. C 7. Amar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 2871/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 8. Gurdip Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3974/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 9. Mehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 784/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab D 10. Mewa Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 783/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab

11. Jagir Singh (dead) and Ors. Vs. 2715/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab 12. Norata Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 4319/2006 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 E State of Punjab 13. Hardial Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 4300/2006 09.11.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab and Anr. 14. Jagir Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 1614/2000 28.01.2010 21.02.2000 State of Punjab and Anr. F 15. Nasib Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3112/2005 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab and Ors. 16. Sher Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and 4318/2006 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 17. Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 4088/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 and Anr. G 18. Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 1468/2008 09.11.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab and Anr. determining the compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in respective first appeals, except RFA No. 1614 of 2000, the original claimants/ H landowners have preferred the present appeals. HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 877 ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 2.1 In RFA No.1614 of 2000, the High Court has awarded the A compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in the respective first appeals, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/ B 2006 decided on 2.3.2009). So far as Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 is concerned, the High Court has determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre alongwith solatium relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010). C 4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the High Court in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra) were the subject matter of appeals before this Court. In the case of Kapoor Singh (supra) and other allied first appeals, this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by a further sum of DRs.1,00,000/- and in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the same has been enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, payable by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with interest and solatium as prescribed by 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 Vs. State of Punjab & E Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).

5. It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the F High Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor 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 Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra), by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of GRs.2,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre respectively. However, there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to deny the statutory benefits including interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment/s and order/s passed by the High Court till the present appeals (special leave petitions) have been preferred before this Court. H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. A 6. In view of the above facts, all these appeals are partly allowed. Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 dated 28.01.2010. We enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals arising out of impugned B

common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012/02.03.2009/ 09.11.2009. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is also further ordered that the original landowners/ claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the C interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of respective judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in 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. D 7. 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. Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. (Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA) E F G H

874 SUPREME COURT[2022]REPORTS4 S.C.R. 874 [2022] 4 S.C.R. A HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022) B SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of – Held: While determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the High Court relied upon its earlier decisions C in the cases of Surjit Singh & Kapoor Singh – Aforesaid decisions of the High Court were the subject matter of appeals before Supreme Court wherein the compensation was further enhanced – Landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated – Accordingly, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners D is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in C.A. arising out of RFA No.1614 of 2000 and by Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals – Further, original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation – However, they shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the interest under the Act from the E date of respective judgments and orders passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in Supreme Court. Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Etc. and Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. Common order of Supreme Court dtd. 15.01.2014 passed in F Civil Appeal Nos. 738-748/2014 and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – relied on.

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Decision of High Court dtd. 2.3.2009 in RFA No. 3004/2006; Kapoor Singh v. The State of Punjab & Another G Decision of High Court dtd. 28.01.2010 in RFA No. 2348/1998 – referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6744-6758 of 2022. H 874 HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 875 ETC. ETC. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2012 of the High A Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No. 3941-3949, 3952, 3953, 4485 of 2007 and 1448, 2871, 3974 of 2008. With Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6743, 6734-6739 of 2022 B Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh Pillania, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Diwan Singh Chauhan, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Amit Kumar Saroha, Ravindra Bana, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja, Kanishak Bunderwal, C Ashok K. Mahajan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi Dhankhar, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. D 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012 / 02.03.2009 / 09.11.2009 Epassed in the respective first appeals, the particulars of which are as under:- Sl. Particulars RFA No. Date of Order Section 4 No. Notification

date 1. Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3941/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 F Punjab 2. Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3942/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab 3. Ajaib Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3943/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 4. Gian Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3944/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 G Punjab and Anr. 5. Amirk Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3945/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 6. Parkash Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3946/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 7. Bakhtaur Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. 3947/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. H 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. A 1. Bachan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. 3948/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 State of Punjab 2. Labh Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and 3949/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 3. Ajmer Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3952/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab B 4. Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 3953/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 5. Tarlochan Singh and Ors. Vs. State 4485/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 of Punjab and Ors. 6. Gurdev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 1448/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab and Anr. C 7. Amar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 2871/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 8. Gurdip Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 3974/2008 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Punjab 9. Mehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 784/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab D 10. Mewa Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 783/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab

11. Jagir Singh (dead) and Ors. Vs. 2715/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab 12. Norata Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 4319/2006 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 E State of Punjab 13. Hardial Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 4300/2006 09.11.2009 21.02.2000 State of Punjab and Anr. 14. Jagir Singh (Dead) and Ors. Vs. 1614/2000 28.01.2010 21.02.2000 State of Punjab and Anr. F 15. Nasib Singh and Anr. Vs. State of 3112/2005 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab and Ors. 16. Sher Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. and 4318/2006 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 17. Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 4088/2007 02.03.2009 21.02.2000 and Anr. G 18. Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs. State of 1468/2008 09.11.2009 21.02.2000 Punjab and Anr. determining the compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in respective first appeals, except RFA No. 1614 of 2000, the original claimants/ H landowners have preferred the present appeals. HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 877 ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 2.1 In RFA No.1614 of 2000, the High Court has awarded the A compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre in the respective first appeals, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 3004/ B 2006 decided on 2.3.2009). So far as Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 is concerned, the High Court has determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre alongwith solatium relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & Another (RFA No. 2348/1998 decided on 28.01.2010). C 4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid decisions of the High Court in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra) were the subject matter of appeals before this Court. In the case of Kapoor Singh (supra) and other allied first appeals, this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by a further sum of DRs.1,00,000/- and in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the same has been enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, payable by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with interest and solatium as prescribed by 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 Vs. State of Punjab & E Another Etc. and Civil Appeal No. 363/2013 – Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.).

5. It is not in dispute that the landowners in the present appeals are also similarly situated. As observed hereinabove, while determining the compensation by the impugned common judgment and order/s, the F High Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in the cases of Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor 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 Surjit Singh (supra) & Kapoor Singh (supra), by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of GRs.2,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre respectively. However, there is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to deny the statutory benefits including interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the judgment/s and order/s passed by the High Court till the present appeals (special leave petitions) have been preferred before this Court. H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. A 6. In view of the above facts, all these appeals are partly allowed. Accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal arising out of RFA No. 1614 of 2000 dated 28.01.2010. We enhance the amount of compensation payable to the landowners by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in remaining Civil Appeals arising out of impugned B

common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012/02.03.2009/ 09.11.2009. It is also ordered that the original landowners shall be entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is also further ordered that the original landowners/ claimants shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits including the C interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of respective judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court till the filing of the appeals in 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. D 7. 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. Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. (Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA) E F G H