54 4 W 1 FeAeOsNoe 4780 of 2003 e O FnAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FAOe No 4782 of 2003 F1e0e Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FJOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FAO Noa 4786 of 2003 FJOn Noe 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noe 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH m 0 Date of Decision2 April el5 2011 0 1 0 I C9 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellantSe I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India a r I Mohinder PaL Je Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 No 4780 to FA0 17 8 r NoA788 of 2003 as they arise out of the common m acquisitionof Iand Z The Iand of the appeliants situated in the revenue Qm estate of Viliage Mahal Tehsii and District Amritsar was requisitioned underle provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 77 1966 a nd possession of the Iand was ta ken by the respondents on 271966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 14 1971 pubiished in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 or short the 1 1 . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 rz 2e 1 r r FeAeOeNoe 4780 of 2003 nl FeAeOmNoa 4781 of 20030 FAO Noe 4782 of 2003 FaA0 Nos 4783 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4784 of 2003 FeA0OeNOe 4785 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4786 of 2003 FAO No 4787 of 2003 and FeAaOeNoe 4788 of 2003 Act of 19527 The competent authority offered compensation for the acquirediand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the m C same was not acceptableto the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair 0 I and just compensation However no action was taken by the C0 respondents on this request of the appellants or their I predecessorseiilterest The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months from the date of the said order The respondents filed Z SpecialLeave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme 00 Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated 3 Z 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No 3462 of 1989 but Ll the same was dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt vide order dated 271995 Ultimately the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 13111995 The District Judgevide common Award dated 662002 passed in Land AcquisitionCases of the appellantsheld that the appellantse Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs600001 per acre However no soiatium and interest was grantedto the appellants Accordingly these appeals have been . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 e 1 1 FAO Noe 4780 of 2003 149 FeAe0lloe 4781 of 2003 FeAaOeNoa 4782 of 2003 FeA N 4783 of 2003 FeAeOsNoa 4784 of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4785 of 2003 FAa0 No 4786 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAOs Noe 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent tm C4 In additionto market value of the Iand and interest 0 No crossobjectionshave been filed by the respondents 0 I I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have 9 gonethrough the records of the case In view of the facts mentioned above two questions Z anse for determination by this Court in these appeals which Q are I C3 Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of compensation beyond oo Rs600001 per acre as determined by the 7 Z iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the Qm impugnedAward and i Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of Iand has been made under the Act of 1952 So far as the first question IS concerned the claim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge Arbitratoro was that the Iand acquired had potentialityof Ie . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 4 4 FeAeOeNon4780 of2003 4Y F A Noa 4781 of 2003 FAO No 4782 of 2003 FAaOe Noa 4783 of 2003 FAO Noe 4784 of 2003 FAaOe Noa 4785 of 2003 FA0Iloe 4786 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4787 of 2003 and FAO No 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the sulJrban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001 per kanai on the date of 1 Q Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that 0 com pensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may C0 I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the C5 entireevidence Ied by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rse60000e per acre ie akin to the demand made by S the IandownerSe Consideringthe aforesaid fact the value of the I acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per 3 acre cannot be faulted with Question Noel IS therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents C0 Now coming to question No2 ie whether award of 7 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where Q acquisition of Iand has been made under the Act of 1952 the same deserves to be answered in favour of the appellantsfor the reasons to be givenhereinafter At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the case of Dilawar Sinqh and others Vse Union of India and othersr JT 2010 111 SC 556 Honble Supreme Court had answered question No2 as framed in this case in favour of the Iandowners by makingreference to various other judgments of the Honble SupremeCourt . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 r 05 4 1 FeAnOeN 4780 of 2003 132 e FaAeOeNOe 4781 of 2003 FAeOm Non 4782 of 2003 FaAn0 Noa 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNOe 4784 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FaAaOeNoe 4786 of 2003 AeOe No 4787 of 2003 and FaAeOeNOe 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 e r However the Iand was acquired sObsequentlyvide notice dated 0 14 1971 pubiished in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated C1 I 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 5 As compensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I competent authority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners n 0 for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civi l Writ Petition C No3462 of 1989 in thisCourt wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20121991 passed by this C0 Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of three months w Z from the date of the said order The respondents then went to file r Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme Court of India making a challenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civii Writ Petition No462 of 1989 It was after Honble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition tlled by the respondents vide order dated 272 1995 that the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the PunjabGovernment vide NotiOcation dated 13111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 277 1966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 e 4 1 FAO Noa 4780 of 2003 I 1 FA0 Non 4781 of 2003 FeAeOmNoe 4782 of 2003 FAO Noe 4783 of 20030 FAO No 4784 of 2003 FA0 No 4785 of 20030 FAO Noe 4786 of 20030 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FA04o 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was m pronounced by the Iearned District Judgeon 6 6 2002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the 0 I rate of Rs600001oer acre No order with regard to payment of C9 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of I compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judge e 0 In the case of Union of India Vse Hari Krishan I Khosla lDeadl bv Lrs JT 1992 Sl SC 5742 1993 Suppl2I SCC 149 Honble SupremeCourt In paragraph 79 of the Z judgment observed as underl CO VS7 Z 11 This is a case in which for 16 years no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS just and proper to applythe principieIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vse Union of India Civil Appeal Nosa470 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 11 1985 The Court held as under Il Having regard to the pecuiiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 e7 f FeAeOeNoe4780 of2003 V Fe0 Non 4781 of 2003 FAO Noa 4782 of 2003 FeOa No 4783 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FeAe0eNoe 4785 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FA0n Noa 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNOe 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not 1 Q made by the Union of India for a periodof 0 16 years we think this is a fit case in which 0 I solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the C5 amount of compensation and interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appellants We are making 2 this order havingregard to the fact that the I Iaw has in the meanwhiie been amended C with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate m r of 9 per cent per annumIl 7 Z As noticed above in this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keepingin View the observation of the Honble SupremeCourt in the afor mentioned cases I have no hesitation in holdingthat the appeliants are entitled to solatium as prayed for by them a iong with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possessionoftheir Iands had been taken by the respondents Iee 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 r 8 4 e e 1 FeAe0sNoe 4780 of 2003 4 FeAn0 Nos 4781 of 2003 FeAnOeNoe 4782 of 2003 F1a0 Non 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 F4Oe Noe 4785 of 2003 FAONo786 of2003 FeAeOeNon 4787 of 2003 and F10 Noa 4788 of 2003 to the extent that the appellantsIandownersare held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by them in these appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001 0 per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandowners I appellantswas taken by the respondentsIee 2771966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this 2 judgmentItl each of the appeal I 41 1 Z April 2011 vlOHINDER PALI 1 ak JUDGE oo 7 Z ll J3 Ip3 1 Il 6 r fl . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document