FAO No.2232 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 207 UNION OF INDIA Vs BALDEV SINGH AND CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the Mr. Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate for HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award 01.06.2000 passed by the Arbitrator application under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, “1952 Act”) appellants-landowners seeking determination/redetermination the acquired land was allowed 2. Briefly stating, land measuring Chhotepur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur came to be appellants-UOI for defence purposes filed an application under Section 8 of the 1952 District Judge, Gurdaspur; appointed by State No.11/34/82-5H which came to be decided vide by awarding market value @ Rs.150/ the statutory interest of 2001(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.223 Date of Decision: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. SINGH AND ANR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award passed by the Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Gurdaspur, application under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, “1952 Act”) landowners seeking determination/redetermination the acquired land was allowed. Briefly stating, land measuring 19 kanals Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur came to be UOI for defence purposes. The appellants filed an application under Section 8 of the 1952 District Judge, Gurdaspur; appointed by State 5H-22578 dated 29.06.1989, seeking determination of compensation, which came to be decided vide impugned award/decision dated by awarding market value @ Rs.150/- per marla along with solatium @ 30% and the statutory interest. Relevant paragraph No.9 thereof IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2232 of 2001(O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2025 ......Appellants ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sr. Advocate with By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, an application under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, “1952 Act”) filed at the instance of landowners seeking determination/redetermination of market value of kanals 18 marlas situated in village Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur came to be acquired The appellants/landowners being aggrieved filed an application under Section 8 of the 1952 Act before the Arbitrator-cum District Judge, Gurdaspur; appointed by State of Punjab vide notification seeking determination of compensation, impugned award/decision dated 01.06.2000, thus per marla along with solatium @ 30% and thereof is extracted hereunder:- 1 dated whereby, an Acquisition of the filed at the instance of of market value of situated in village acquired by being aggrieved cum- of Punjab vide notification seeking determination of compensation, , thus per marla along with solatium @ 30% and MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2232 of 2001 9. issues, I accept this petition and award compensation to the applicant at the rate of Rs.150/ solatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, so worked out of the land of the same village in writ petition no.FAO 462 of 1980 decided on 11 1998 in case awarded interest at the rate of 9% for t and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter, till payment. The applicant is also entitled other benefits arising due to the amended provisions of Section 23 (1 costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.1000/ respondents shall make the payment to the applicant within a period of three months from today, failing which, the recovery can be effected through execution. The judgment be w Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record room.” 3. Aggrieved thereof, appellants-UOI 4. Learned counsel for the appellants passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur was against law and facts and, thus liable to be set aside. 5. Learned in the facts and circumstances of the case, required to be enhanced, hence the appeal filed at the instance of the appellants/Union of India be dismissed and the landowners be awarded compensation in terms of deci Dilawar Singh and others vs. Union of India and others” SCC 357. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the paper book of this case. I am unable to find merit of 2001(O&M) For the foregoing reasons, discussion and my findings on the above issues, I accept this petition and award compensation to the applicant at the rate of Rs.150/- per marla as market value of the land. I also award olatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, so worked out of the land of the same village in writ petition no.FAO 462 of 1980 decided on 11 1998 in case Union of India vs. Shankar Dass awarded interest at the rate of 9% for t and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter, till payment. The applicant is also entitled other benefits arising due to the amended provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The application is accepte costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.1000/ respondents shall make the payment to the applicant within a period of three months from today, failing which, the recovery can be effected through execution. The judgment be w Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record room.” Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal UOI for setting aside of the order/award dated Learned counsel for the appellants- passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur was against law and facts and, thus liable to be set aside. Learned Senior counsel representing in the facts and circumstances of the case, market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced, hence the appeal filed at the instance of the appellants/Union of India be dismissed and the landowners be awarded compensation in terms of decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dilawar Singh and others vs. Union of India and others” I have heard learned counsel for the paper book of this case. I am unable to find merit For the foregoing reasons, discussion and my findings on the above issues, I accept this petition and award compensation to the applicant at per marla as market value of the land. I also award olatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, so worked out of the land of the same village in writ petition no.FAO 462 of 1980 decided on 11- Shankar Dass. The applicant is also awarded interest at the rate of 9% for the first year after taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter, till payment. The applicant is also entitled other benefits arising due to the amended provisions of Section A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The application is accepted with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.1000/- (Rs. one thousand) only. The respondents shall make the payment to the applicant within a period of three months from today, failing which, the recovery can be effected through execution. The judgment be written on stamp paper worth Rs.75/ Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record appeal was filed on behalf of for setting aside of the order/award dated 01.06.2000. -Union of India submits that award passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur was against law and facts and, thus representing respondent No.1 submitted that market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced, hence the appeal filed at the instance of the appellants/Union of India be dismissed and the landowners be awarded sion passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dilawar Singh and others vs. Union of India and others”, reported as 2010(14) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book of this case. I am unable to find merit in the present appeal. 2 For the foregoing reasons, discussion and my findings on the above issues, I accept this petition and award compensation to the applicant at per marla as market value of the land. I also award olatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, so worked out of the land -11- The applicant is also he first year after taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter, till payment. The applicant is also entitled other benefits arising due to the amended provisions of Section d with (Rs. one thousand) only. The respondents shall make the payment to the applicant within a period of three months from today, failing which, the recovery can be effected ritten on stamp paper worth Rs.75/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record on behalf of the Union of India submits that award passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur was against law and facts and, thus that market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced, hence the appeal filed at the instance of the appellants/Union of India be dismissed and the landowners be awarded sion passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of 2010(14) and gone through the MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2232 of 2001 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in has uniformly assessed situated in the outskirts of Pathankot years 1964 to 1972 and thus, the case of acquisition for the year 1964 paras 8 and 9 of the hereunder:- 8. to claim any enhancement in the amount of compensation determined in these cases. of 1989) Court has upheld the enhancement of compensation to Rs.350/ The High Court was in that case dealing with a similar question arising out of the very same acquisition process. Relying u Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163 High Court in Inder Singh's case (supra) enhanced the compensation payable to the land preferred before the Division Bench against the said order out of which two appeals were dismis dismissed for non challenging the order passed by the Single Judge awards in favour of the land entitling the land Rs.350/ was not, therefore, considered just and equitable when there were no distinguishing features to that the decision in Shanker Singh's case (supra) was squarely applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity of the acquisitions in point of time. The notification in Shanker Singh' case (su March, 1970 whereas that in Inder Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9th January, 1970. The amount of compensation determined in Shanker Singh’s (supra) was therefore found by the High Court to be relevant for award of compensation in of 2001(O&M) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh and others assessed the market value @ Rs.350/ the outskirts of Pathankot especially 1972 and thus, the case of respondents acquisition for the year 1964 is squarely covered by the said decision. Relevant paras 8 and 9 of the Dilawar Singh and others “That brings us to the question whether the land to claim any enhancement in the amount of compensation determined in these cases. In Union of India etc. v. Inder Singh and Anr. (LPA No.1918 of 1989) and connected matters to which we have referred earlier the High Court has upheld the enhancement of compensation to Rs.350/ The High Court was in that case dealing with a similar question arising out of the very same acquisition process. Relying u Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163 High Court in Inder Singh's case (supra) enhanced the compensation payable to the land- owners to Rs.350/ preferred before the Division Bench against the said order out of which two appeals were dismissed by separate orders of the Court while the third was dismissed for non-prosecution. The result was that out of five appeals challenging the order passed by the Single Judge awards in favour of the land-owners in the case of three dismissed appeals attai entitling the land-owners respondents in those appeals to compensation @ Rs.350/- per marla. The refusal of a similar relief in the remaining cases was not, therefore, considered just and equitable when there were no distinguishing features to justify such a refusal. The High Court also found that the decision in Shanker Singh's case (supra) was squarely applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity of the acquisitions in point of time. The notification in Shanker Singh' case (su March, 1970 whereas that in Inder Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9th January, 1970. The amount of compensation determined in Shanker Singh’s (supra) was therefore found by the High Court to be relevant for award of compensation in Inder Singh’s case (supra) also. Dilawar Singh and others’ case (supra) the market value @ Rs.350/- per marla relating to land especially pertaining to acquisition for the respondents-landowners which pertains to is squarely covered by the said decision. Relevant Dilawar Singh and others’ case (supra) are extracted “That brings us to the question whether the land-owners are entitled to claim any enhancement in the amount of compensation determined in Union of India etc. v. Inder Singh and Anr. (LPA No.1918 connected matters to which we have referred earlier the High Court has upheld the enhancement of compensation to Rs.350/- per marla. The High Court was in that case dealing with a similar question arising out of the very same acquisition process. Relying upon its decision in Shanker Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163 , a Single Bench of the High Court in Inder Singh's case (supra) enhanced the compensation owners to Rs.350/- per marla. Five appeals were preferred before the Division Bench against the said order out of which two sed by separate orders of the Court while the third was prosecution. The result was that out of five appeals challenging the order passed by the Single Judge awards in favour of the owners in the case of three dismissed appeals attained finality owners respondents in those appeals to compensation @ per marla. The refusal of a similar relief in the remaining cases was not, therefore, considered just and equitable when there were no justify such a refusal. The High Court also found that the decision in Shanker Singh's case (supra) was squarely applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity of the acquisitions in point of time. The notification in Shanker Singh' case (supra) was issued on 6th March, 1970 whereas that in Inder Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9th January, 1970. The amount of compensation determined in Shanker Singh’s (supra) was therefore found by the High Court to be relevant for award of Inder Singh’s case (supra) also. 3 case (supra) per marla relating to land pertaining to acquisition for the which pertains to is squarely covered by the said decision. Relevant are extracted owners are entitled to claim any enhancement in the amount of compensation determined in Union of India etc. v. Inder Singh and Anr. (LPA No.1918 connected matters to which we have referred earlier the High per marla. The High Court was in that case dealing with a similar question arising out Shanker , a Single Bench of the High Court in Inder Singh's case (supra) enhanced the compensation per marla. Five appeals were preferred before the Division Bench against the said order out of which two sed by separate orders of the Court while the third was prosecution. The result was that out of five appeals challenging the order passed by the Single Judge awards in favour of the ned finality owners respondents in those appeals to compensation @ per marla. The refusal of a similar relief in the remaining cases was not, therefore, considered just and equitable when there were no justify such a refusal. The High Court also found that the decision in Shanker Singh's case (supra) was squarely applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity of the acquisitions in point pra) was issued on 6th March, 1970 whereas that in Inder Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9th January, 1970. The amount of compensation determined in Shanker Singh’s (supra) was therefore found by the High Court to be relevant for award of MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2232 of 2001 9. acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra). The 9204/2010) apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing to non High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shankar Singh’s case and that delivered in Inder Singh’s case (supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should also not be enhanced to Rs.350 proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far as Mohinder Si by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.” 8. Though no behalf of the respondents acquired land, yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion believes that it must pass an appropriate order to deliver complete justice by awarding just compensation as determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of and others’ case (supra) Reliance in this regard can be placed upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble of 2001(O&M) In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra). The notification in Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9204/2010) was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing to non-agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shankar Singh’s case and that delivered in Inder Singh’s case supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should also not be enhanced to Rs.350 proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far as Mohinder Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.” hough no cross-appeal or cross-objections have been preferred on behalf of the respondents regarding re-determination of comp yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion believes that it must pass an appropriate order to deliver complete justice by awarding just as determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of case (supra) while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC Reliance in this regard can be placed upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra). Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot. The growing agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shankar Singh’s case and that delivered in Inder Singh’s case supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should also not be enhanced to Rs.350/- per marla with proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far ngh’s case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any cogent evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a objections have been preferred on determination of compensation qua the yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion believes that it must pass an appropriate order to deliver complete justice by awarding just, fair and reasonable as determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dilawar Singh while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC Reliance in this regard can be placed upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble 4 In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra). Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and wn like Pathankot. The growing agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shankar Singh’s case and that delivered in Inder Singh’s case supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to no reason why the amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these per marla with proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far ngh’s case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of cogent evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a objections have been preferred on ensation qua the yet in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion believes that it must pass an appropriate and reasonable Dilawar Singh while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2232 of 2001 Supreme Court in 2011(1) R.C.R.(Civil) has powers to grant a part of decree. Relevant hereunder: - “17 without filing an appeal before the High Court from the order of the Reference Court, are entitled application under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. 18.. provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression `Order ought to have been made' would obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying or other Order as the case may require.' This expression `case' would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. 19. several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (CPC, 15th Edition, pg. 2647) observed that this Rule is modelled on Order 59, Rule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England, further opined that the purpose of this rule is to do complete justice between the parties. 20. the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC held that this provision confers powers of of 2001(O&M) Court in the case of “Pralhad vs State of Maharashtra ) R.C.R.(Civil) 809, whereby it was to grant appropriate relief even a part of decree. Relevant paragraph Nos.17 to 20 7. Now, the only question which remains is whether the landowners, without filing an appeal before the High Court from the order of the Reference Court, are entitled to the aforesaid benefit on the basis of their application under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. . The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression `Order ought to have been made' would obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying or other Order as the case may require.' This expression `case' would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. In fact, the ambit of this provision has come up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (CPC, 15th Edition, pg. 2647) observed that this Rule is modelled on Order 59, Rule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England, further opined that the purpose of this rule is to do complete justice between the parties. In Vanarsi vs. Ramphal, AIR 2004 SC 1989 the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC held that this provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete Pralhad vs State of Maharashtra” reported as was held that the Appellate Court even if no appeal was made paragraph Nos.17 to 20 thereof are reproduced Now, the only question which remains is whether the landowners, without filing an appeal before the High Court from the order of the to the aforesaid benefit on the basis of their application under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any Order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression `Order ought to have been made' would obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying `the court may pass such further or other Order as the case may require.' This expression `case' would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. bit of this provision has come up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (CPC, 15th Edition, pg. 2647) observed that this Rule is modelled on Order 59, Rule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England, and Mulla further opined that the purpose of this rule is to do complete justice Vanarsi vs. Ramphal, AIR 2004 SC 1989, this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC held that this provision confers the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete 5 reported as the Appellate Court made to reproduced Now, the only question which remains is whether the landowners, without filing an appeal before the High Court from the order of the to the aforesaid benefit on the basis of their The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the Order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression `Order ought to have been made' would obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the `the court may pass such further or other Order as the case may require.' This expression `case' would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a bit of this provision has come up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (CPC, 15th Edition, pg. 2647) observed that this Rule is modelled on Order 59, and Mulla further opined that the purpose of this rule is to do complete justice , this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC held that this provision confers the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2232 of 2001 justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or who has filed the appeal or whether the appe or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (Se Samundra Devi and others vs. Narendra Kaur and others, (2008) 9 SCC 100 exercised ignoring a legal interdict 9. In view of land situated on the outskirts of Pathankot has been assessed at Rs.350/ for the acquisition notified in February, 1970, the awarding similar compensation i.e. @ Rs.350/ statutory benefits in favour of the respondents rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 10. All pend 11. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry immediately at their given addresses. April 05, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2001(O&M) justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or who has filed the appeal or whether the appe or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (See para 15 at pg. 1997). It has also been held by this Court in Samundra Devi and others vs. Narendra Kaur and others, (2008) 9 SCC 100 (para 21) that this power under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict.” In view of above, considering the fact that the market value of the situated on the outskirts of Pathankot has been assessed at Rs.350/ for the acquisition notified in February, 1970, the awarding similar compensation i.e. @ Rs.350/ statutory benefits in favour of the respondents-landowners in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh and others All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry immediately at their given addresses. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or who has filed the appeal or whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that e para 15 at pg. 1997). It has also been held by this Court in Samundra Devi and others vs. Narendra Kaur and others, (2008) 9 SCC (para 21) that this power under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC cannot be onsidering the fact that the market value of the situated on the outskirts of Pathankot has been assessed at Rs.350/- per marla for the acquisition notified in February, 1970, the present appeal is dismissed while awarding similar compensation i.e. @ Rs.350/- per marla along with other landowners in terms of the decision Dilawar Singh and others’ case (supra). ing application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 6 justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or al is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that e para 15 at pg. 1997). It has also been held by this Court in Samundra Devi and others vs. Narendra Kaur and others, (2008) 9 SCC (para 21) that this power under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC cannot be onsidering the fact that the market value of the marla while per marla along with other landowners in terms of the decision . A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.24 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment