JEEWAN DHAR JAIN DEAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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 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-land owners-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 judg ment 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 pe titions 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 dated 25th of October, 2001 passed in Review Applica tion 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. Simi lar 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 :-

(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 Corpo ration 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 Kapoors case (supra). Accordingly, the afore said 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 Court in the impugned order made the following observations -