IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 1990 Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Smt.Mitlesh Kumari …..Petitioner versus The Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.8065 and 8066 both of 1987 and CWP Nos.10652, 12175, 12176, 12177, 12178, 12179, 12391, 12392, 12393, 12394 all of 1990, involving common questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.12177 of 1990. This writ petitions has been filed by making the following prayer:- “(a) To pay the enhanced solatium and interest as envisaged by the Amendment Act, 1984. Or (b) A direction be issued to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 to either Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 1990 amend the Award Annexure P1 or to pronounce a fresh award regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the enhanced solatium and interest.” It is case of the petitioners that land measuring 189 kanals 13 marlas, including land of the petitioner situated in village Haryal Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired by the respondents in the year 1983 under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (in short, the RAIP Act). Compensation for the land required was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector on 8.2.1971. Petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, moved the authorities for appointment of an arbitrator to claim higher amount of compensation. The respondents appointed Mr.D.S.Dhaliwal, Additional District Judge Gurdaspur as an arbitrator under section 8(1)(b) of the RAIP Act on 7.12.1982, who vide award dated 5.4.1983, granted compensation to the petitioner @ Rs.1000/- per kanal. Solatium @ 15% on the amount so awarded was also assessed. It was further ordered that interest be paid @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of acquisition until the payment of compensation amount. Petitioner and also the respondents were satisfied with the award passed, against which no appeal was filed. In the meantime, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short, LA Act), came into existence on 24.9.1984, increasing rate of payment of solatium from 15% to 30% and rate of interest payable on compensation amount was also increased. The above said provisions were made applicable with effect from 30.4.1982, in the pending proceedings regarding assessment of compensation. As per the petitioner, in pursuance of the Amendment, mentioned above and award in her case having been passed on 5.4.1983, she 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 1990 moved an application under section 151/153 of CPC on 16.9.1986 for amendment of the award passed in her favour before the arbitrator. However, subsequent thereto, that application was got dismissed as withdrawn on 12.3.1987. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed in the month of September 1990, claiming solatium and interest at the enhanced rates under the provisions of the LA Act. Upon notice, reply has been filed wherein claim of the petitioner, to get solatium and interest at higher rates, has been negatived. It has been stated that the compensation regarding land of the petitioner was assessed way back in the year 1971, arbitrator passed an award in the year 1983, the petitioner was satisfied, she never challenged the same and as such, at this case, she cannot claim any relief. In the alternative, it was stated that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) by L.R.s 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 149, Union of India v. Chajju Ram (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2339 and Union of India and others v. Seneth Munda and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1752, provisions of LA Act cannot be read into the provisions of RAIP Act and no relief can be granted to the petitioner towards enhanced rate of solatium and interest. To the contrary, counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to the concluding paragraph of judgment in Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) and Chajju Ram (supra) and also Prabhu Dayal and others v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 221, prayed that the enhanced solatium and interest be awarded to the petitioner as per provisions of the LA Act. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and looking into the ratio of the judgments in cases of Hari Krishan Khosla (supra), Chajju 3 Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 1990 Ram (supra) Seneth Munda and others (supra), wherein it was specifically held that the provisions of LA Act cannot be read into the provisions of RAIP Act and further that mechanism of assessment of compensation under both the Acts is separate and is not discriminatory. In the case of Seneth Munda and others, their Lordships of the Hon Supreme Court held as under:- “11. This Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram (dead) by L.Rs. & Others (2003) 5 SCC 568, has clearly laid down that the land owners under the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis the RAIP Act or the Defence of India Act, are not similarly situated and solatium and interest on the amount of compensation are not legally sustainable.” Objection of the respondents that benefit of solatium and interest was wrongly granted to the petitioner is liable to be rejected because the award passed in the year 1983 had already become final. Respondents had not filed any appeal against that award. So far as claim of the petitioner, to get payment of enhanced rate of interest is concerned, in the cases relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, relief was granted only on the basis of equity by noting that arbitrator was appointed after a period of more than a decade. In most of the cases, relief of payment of solatium and interest at the enhanced rates was granted by the High Court, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere. But the present case is such, in which equity cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that compensation for the land acquired was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector in the year 1971. Arbitrator passed award on 5.4.1983. Petitioner was satisfied. She did not file any appeal etc to lay challenge to the Award of 4 Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 1990 compensation. In the meantime, in the year 1984, by making Amendment in the LA Act, rate of payment of solatium and interest was enhanced. Petitioner did nothing, she woke up in the year 1986, by moving an application for amendment of the award passed in the year 1983. Even that application was got dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1987 without any liberty to avail any other remedy. This writ petition was filed after about three years of dismissal of that application. Though not entitled, the arbitrator had already granted solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% to the petitioner. The respondents have not find any appeal against those orders. The amount paid towards solatium and interest can be said to have been paid for delay, if any, caused in appointing an arbitrator. In view of conduct of the petitioner, she is not entitled to any equitable relief. Accordingly all the writ petitions stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 7.10.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 5