Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes ₹25K costs on Central government for contesting settled issue of law

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Central government on finding that the government had effectively re-agitated an issue of law that had already been settled earlier by the Supreme Court [Union of India and another v. Harbhajan Kaur and others]..Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed that Central government authorities (petitioners, in this case) deserve to be burdened with appropriate costs to "make them realize their mistake in wasting valuable time of the Court."."Since the petitioners have unnecessarily gone to the extent of contesting on an issue of law which already stands decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court long ago, therefore, the petitioners deserves to be burdened with an appropriate cost; so as to make them realize their mistake in wasting time of the Court", the High Court said in its December 7, 2023 order..The High Court was hearing a revision plea filed by the Union government to set aside an executing court's 2019 order.The case concerned a land acquisition carried out in 1987, in connection with which the (earlier) landowners approached a civil court for the enhancement of compensation. In 1990, a civil court in Gurdaspur enhanced the compensation payable. This civil court verdict was upheld by the High Court, which also granted the benefit of additional market value in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The High Court verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2017. Thereafter, the landowners approached a civil court for the execution of the judgment in their favour. .At this juncture, the Central government objected to the landowners claim for interest on the additional market value awarded by the High Court. The Central government authorities argued that the additional market value is not part of the compensation, and that the landowners could not claim interest on such additional value. .The executing court rejected this objection, prompting the government to file an appeal before the High Court. .The High Court upheld the executing court's finding, observing that it does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Notably, Justice Sehrawat pointed out that the Supreme Court has already held that additional market value is part of compensation. ."Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position in the cases of Gurdeep Singh Versus Union of India, 2006 AIR SCW 5813, and Sunder Versus Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516, that the additional market value, per se, is part of the compensation. Therefore, the land owner shall be; ipso facto; entitled to the interest even on the amount of additional market value. Hence, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits, as such," the judge explained. .Therefore, the High Court dismissed the government's plea with costs of ₹25,000. .Advocate Arun Gosain appeared for the petitioners, including the Union of India. Advocate Harmanpreet Singh appeared for the lead respondent (landowner claiming compensation)..[Read Order]