Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIAversusRATTAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: 1996 INSC 517
Decided: 12 April 1996
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

The appellant must deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation under Section 26, and the respondents may withdraw that amount without security, subject to restitution if the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against the award of compensation under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made in favour of Rattan Singh and others. The High Court had stayed execution of the award, directing the Union to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation. The Union complied, but the respondents argued that the deposit was not made as per the decree. The Supreme Court ordered that the Union must deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation, and the respondents may withdraw that amount without furnishing security, subject to the final result of the appeal; any amount withdrawn must be restituted if the appeal is allowed. The Court also noted an unsatisfactory enquiry report into allegations of a commission demand and ordered a fresh independent enquiry. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is required to deposit fifty percent of the enhanced compensation awarded under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the respondents may withdraw the deposited amount without providing security and the conditions attached to such withdrawal.
Whether the enquiry report into the alleged commission demand is sufficient or a fresh enquiry is required.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 26

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationSection 26Interim stayDeposit of compensationWithdrawal without securityEnquiry into corruption allegation

Judgment

A                              UNION OF INDIA
                                         v.
                       RATTAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

                                 APRIL 12, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

           Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

          S.26-Award of compensation by Court-<:owt directing the appellant
    to deposit 50% of enhanced compensation-Held, respondents are entitled to
c   withdraw the amount without fumishing any secwity-In case appeals are
    allowed respondents would restitute the amounts withdraw.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7616 of
    1996 Etc.
D        From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.95 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 444 of 1995.

           N.N. Goswami, Wasim Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellant.

           Manoj Swarup, Mahabir Singh and S.B.S. Chauhan for the Respon-
E dents.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           Leave granted.

F          We have lieard learned counsel on both sides.

           By order dated December 4 1995, this Court had issued notice and
    directed interim stay of the execution of the awards, subject to the condi-
    tion that the appellant would pay 50% of the enhanced compensation. We
    are informed by Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
G   that ·the order has been complied with. On the other hand, it is contended
    for the respondents that the deposit 50% of the amount was not in terms
    of the decree of the reference Court. Be it as it may, the appellant is
    directed lo deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation as awarded under
    Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the decree and award
H   which is the subject mater of the present appeals. The respondents are at
                                        2%
                            U.0.l. v. RATTAN SINGH                          '297

    liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The              A
    withdrawal of 50% of the amount will be subject to the result in the appeal.
    In case the appeals are allowed, to that extent the respondents shall
    restitute the amounts withdrawn.

          Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on December 4, 1995, an
    enquiry was held into the allegation made by the respondents in their B
    counter affidavit, in particular by one Mr. B.S. Hans S/o Ratan Singh that
    one B.K. Mehta, dealing clerk of the Defence Estate Office, Gopinath
    Bazar approached the claimants and asked them to pay 2% commission
    promising that the decretal amount will be deposited on R.K. Sharma
    Director, Defence Estate, Western Command, Chandigarh came to be C
    appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In his report dated December 26, 1995
    in paragraph 28, he came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in
    regard to the allegation made by the Hans and members of the iiar. On
    going through the report submitted by him, we are at a loss to understand
    his conclusion in the face of the material placed before him. However, Mr.
    Goswami informed us that a regular enquiry has been ordered and it would D
    be conducted in this matter. It is needless to say that the report submitted
    by R.K. Sharma is not even worthy of salt to look at and was not stemmed
    with a sense of responsibility but with a Zeal to shield the corrupt and the
    reasons are not far to seek and ex facie eloquent. The Enquiry Officer
    should independently go into and conduct the enquiry and take ap- E
    propriate action and submit the report to this Court on the final action
    taken in that matter.

           The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

    R.P.                                                   Appeals disposed of.
l

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search