R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- 1. R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 Date of Decision:16.10.2008 Raghbir Singh(deceased) through LR's Sukhwinder Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Respondents 2. R.F.A.No.2399 of 1997 Didar Singh and others ......Appellants Vs. Union of India and another ......Respondents 3. R.F.A.No.2427 of 1997 Reshmi Devi and others .....Appellants Vs. Union of India .....Respondent 4. R.F.A.No.2431 of 1997 Reshmi Devi and others .....Appellants Vs. Union of India and another .....Respondents 5. R.F.A.No.2432 of 1997 Jasmer Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Union of India and others .....Respondents 6. R.F.A.No. 2507 of 1997 Partap Singh and others ......Appellants Vs. Union of India .....Respondent 7. R.F.A.No.2630 of 1997 Rai Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 2 Union of India .....Respondent 8. R.F.A.No.2668 of 1997 Sital ......Appellant Vs. The Union Territory .....Respondent 9. R.F.A.No.2669 of 1997 Sher Singh and another .....Appellants Vs. The Union Territory ......Respondent 10. R.F.A.No.2670 of 1997 Mohinder Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. The Union Territory and others .....Respondents 11. R.F.A.No.2671 of 1997 Harbant Singh .....Appellants Vs. Union of India .....Respondent 12. R.F.A.No.2672 of 1997 Rajinder Kaur and another .....Appellants Vs. Union of India and others .....Respondents 13. xxxxx 14. R.F.A.NO.1804 of 1999 Krishan Kumar ……Appellant Vs. Union of India and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Sh.R.K.Dhiman, Sh. P.C.Dhiman Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 3 for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal.J. The land owners have approached this Court through the present appeals for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 20.2.1969, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Union Territory, Chandigarh, acquired land of three villages, namely, Dadu Majra (11.88 acres), Maloya (185.74 acres) and Badheri (54.13 acres), for the development of Sector 39, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 5.4.1969 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ of Rs. 6750/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 4500/- per acre for Arzi Chahi or Mustar Chahi land and Rs. 3600/- per acre for Barani land. The land- owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land-owners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 28.7.1997 determined the market value of the acquired land @ of Rs. 22,500/- per acre. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset submitted that claim made by them in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 920 of 1985 titled as Pritam Singh V. Union of India where the award of the learned court below as far as value of the required land is concerned, was upheld. However, he submitted that the decision of the learned Court below that the land owners shall not be entitled to interest on solatium deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 4 placed upon JT 2001(8) SC 130 titled as Sunder V. Union of India. Learned counsel appearing for respondents did not dispute the fact that the award of the learned court below determining the value of the acquired land at Rs.22,500/- per acre for all kinds of land was upheld by this Court. Accordingly, as far as value of the land is concerned, the claim made by the appellants does not survive and accordingly, the award of the learned court below to that extent is upheld. As far as grant of interest on solatium is concerned the claim made by the appellants is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court is Sunder Singh’s case (supra) wherein it was opined by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that the land owners are entitled to interest even on the amount of solatium. Accordingly, the appellants in the present case are held entitled to interest on the amount of solatium. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of by upholding the award of the learned court below to the extent of determination of value of the acquired land whereas the direction regarding non- entitlement of interest on the amount of solatium is set aside and the land owners are held entitled to interest on the amount of solatium as well. (RAJESH BINDAL) Judge 16th October, 2008 SKAUSHIK R.F.A.No.2045 of 1999 5 In RFA No. 2045 of 1999 The aforesaid appeal was decided along with bunch of appeals on 16.10.2008. The Registry has put up the aforesaid file pointing out that the entire bunch of appeals pertained to UT Chandigarh but RFA No. 1065 of 1998 decided alongwith bunch of appeals pertained to District Mansa. It is submitted that inadvertently RFA No. 1065 of 1998 was clubbed and decided with this bunch. I have perused the paper book. Facts pointed out by the registry are borne out from record. The order passed in RFA No. 1065 of 1998 has been recalled vide separate order of even date passed in RFA No. 1065 of 1998. The particulars of RFA No. 1065 of 1998 mentioned at Sr. No. 13 at page 2 of judgment in RFA No. 2045 of 1999 are ordered to be deleted. These corrections be carried out on the internet. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 3.8.2009 vs.