Supreme Court Asks Punjab Govt To Pay Rs 5 Crore Compensation To Son Of Freedom Fighter Whose Property Was Confiscated By British

On Thursday, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to the son (respondent) of the deceased, Mr. S. Sampuran Singh, India's first Deputy High Commissioner to Pakistan and a freedom fighter, for the land confiscated by the Government of British India. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that value of the land belonging to Mr. Singh would be more than the meagre amount of Rs. 72050. In view of the same the compensation amount calculated by the Government of Punjab at Rs. 72,050 was increased to Rs. 5 crores. "It was further submitted that keeping into account that the respondent's father was a freedom fighter, generosity was shown to the respondent and an amount of Rs. 72050 was granted as compensation. However,...the amount of Rs. 72050 does not represent the value of the land belonging to the land of the respondent's father that was confiscated…Taking into account that the respondent is entitled to be compensated suitably for the land belonging to his father, we direct the State of Punjab to pay an amount of Rs. 5 crores to the respondent as full and final consideration within a period of 8 weeks from today."Factual Background Mr. S. Sampuran Singh had taken part in the national movement against the British Government, as a result of which his property, now situated in Pakistan, was confiscated. On 11.12.1948, he submitted a representation to the Government of Punjab informing the State that 50 acres of agricultural land belonging to him was confiscated and he sought restoration of the property. On 18.07.1958, the Chief Secretary of the State responded and asked him to provide information regarding the national movement he was a part of. Mr. Singh sent a letter on 25.07.1958 furnishing such details stating that he had taken part in the Satyagraha movement started by Mahatma Gandhi after the Second World War and was also jailed along with Gopi Chand Bharagv, Mulk Raj and others. By his letter he further informed the Government that he was called by the Commissioner of Multan when the order was passed to confiscate his land in Pakistan. Thereafter, he passed away in August, 1958. His widow discovered the correspondence and on 03.09.1979 submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of the State seeking restoration of property in lieu of land that was confiscated by the British. After checking the veracity of the request, on 28.11.1986, the Financial Commissioner passed an order holding that the respondent would be entitled to land of 11 acres and 5.5 kanals valued at the rate of Rs. 1500/acre, which would amount to Rs. 17300. The Financial Commissioner categorically stated in the order that it is not possible to disbelieve that no land of Sampuran Singh was confiscated. A memo was issued by the concerned Government Department by way of which an amount of Rs. 72,050 was sanctioned to be paid to the respondent in lieu of 50 acres of land. The respondent filed a writ petition aggrieved by the paltry compensation amount. In the said petition allotment of 50 acres of land was sought and in the alternative compensation on the basis of market value of the 50 acres of land was prayed for. The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and directed allotment of alternate land to the respondent. In appeal, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the Single Judge. Contentions raised by the appellant Advocate, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab submitted that Mr. Sampuran Singh had claimed 50 acres of land confiscated by the erstwhile British Government. He had made a representation to this effect on 11.12.1948. In August, 1958 he passed away. His wife found the said correspondence and decided to pursue the matter. It was submitted that neither the verification of the ownership of the land was concluded by the Government, nor could the respondents independently prove that they had title over the confiscated property. In the light of the same, she assailed the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the Government of Punjab had accepted that the land was confiscated. She asserted that the compensation was given merely on the consideration that Mr. Sampuran Singh was a freedom fighter. "Where the High Court says that the Govt has come to the conclusion that the land was confiscated is wrong according to us. The verification was not concluded. They have not proved title to the property. As a benefit of doubt, at our benevolence we treated the land as abandoned and not confiscated land and calculated the land 50 acres as 11 acres and market rate at that time was granted. This was done in 1968", she submitted.She further claimed that the name of the owners and particulars of the concerned property did not match with official records. Referring to the documents on record, Justice Rao stated that the...

Supreme Court Asks Punjab Govt To Pay Rs 5 Crore Compensation To Son Of Freedom Fighter Whose Property Was Confiscated By British

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

Supreme Court Asks Punjab Govt To Pay Rs 5 Crore Compensation To Son Of Freedom Fighter Whose Property Was Confiscated By British

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers