IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.741 of 1987 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Onkar Nath ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the respondents ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present appeal has been filed for the enhancement of compensation already awarded vide order dated 04-05-1987 by the Arbitrator (Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur). The facts, in brief, are that the land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhadroa, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and fully described in the said schedule, was acquired by the Punjab Government for Defence Purposes vide J. Notice No.120/SLAC dated 28-02-1970. The Arbitrator assessed the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs.200/- per marla while relying on the F.A.O No.741 of 1987 -2- judgment dated 06-04-1983 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.S. Tiwana of this Court in regard to the land of Shankar Singh etc. which has been depicted in red shade in Aks Shajra Ex.A.2 and which is at a distance of only 70 karams from the acquired land. The said compensation was awarded by relying on the judgment Ex. A.3 as the land which was the subject matter of the judgment almost adjoins the acquired land and was acquired in the same year of 1970. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that L.P.A was filed against the judgment dated 06-04-1983 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.S. Tiwana in F.A.O. No.39 of 1978. The said Letters Patent Appeal No.658 of 1983 was allowed vide order dated 05-10- 1987 by the Division Bench of this Court and the market value of the land acquired was enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.350/- per marla with the following directions :- “ The market value of the land acquired is assessed at Rs.350/- per marla and the land-owners are accordingly awarded compensation for the land acquired at this rate along with solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on such market value and interest thereon for the first year, from the date when the possession of the land was taken at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent till the date of payment of the compensation awarded.” Thereafter, the S.L.P was also filed against the above mentioned L.P.A which was dismissed along with the S.L.P titled as Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla JT 1992(5) S.C. 574. i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.1320-1322 of 1990 arising out of the L.P.A No. 658 of 1983 was dismissed along with the S.L.P F.A.O No.741 of 1987 -3- and the same finds mention in para 82 of the said judgment : “ 82. The impugned judgment has been upheld with reference to the decision in SLP(C) Nos.4291- 4348 of 1984. Therefore, that having become conclusive, it cannot be re-opened. The appeals will stand dismissed accordingly.” Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the facts. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees that the said matter be disposed of in terms of judgment dated 05-10-1987 passed in LPA No.658 of 1983 only to the extent vide which the compensation was enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.350/- per marla but objected to the grant of solatium and interest. However, the attention of this Court has been invited to para 78 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Union of India (supra), wherein, reliance was placed in the case of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.470 & 471 of 1985, disposed of by this Court on 11th February, 1985), wherein, in view of the fact that appointment of the Arbitrator was not made by the Union of India for more than 16 years, solatium @ 30% of the amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 9% was awarded. It is an admitted position that in the present case also, the land was acquired on 28-02-1970, whereas, the Arbitrator was appointed after a gap of 15 years on 14-03-1985. The facts of the present case are, therefore, squarely covered for the entitlement of solatium. Para 78 of the judgment titled as Union of India (supra) is reproduced below. “ 78. XXX XXX XXX Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not made by the Union of India for period of 16 years, we think this is a fit case in which solatium at the rate of 30% of the amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 9% per annum should be awarded to the appellants. We are F.A.O No.741 of 1987 -4- making this order having regard to the fact that the law has in the meanwhile been amended with a view to providing solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum.” A Division Bench of this Court in Madan Lal and others vs. Union of India and others 1993(2) RLR 743 allowed the solatium and interest to the petitioners in similar circumstances where the arbitrator was not appointed for number of years. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any distinguishing features in the instant case as to why the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi (supra), Union of India (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Lal and others (supra) cannot apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, the appeal is allowed, in the same terms as in LPA No.658 of 1983, decided on 05-10-1987. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.08.2009 JUDGE gurpreet