53 4 1e 11 4 P FnAn0eNom 4780 of 2003 FnAn0 Noe 4781 of 20030 4 FeAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FnAe0Noe4785 of20030 FAO Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FA0404788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNOAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1r Date of Decisionl April e 15 20110 1 0 C0 I Ceo Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellants I Mre SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India m 1Z I Mohinder Palo J 0 Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 No 4780 to FAO 1f m NoA788 of 2003 as they arise out of the common 7 acquisitionof Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue estate of Village Mahal TehsiI and District Amritsar was requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 7 1966 and possession of the Iand was taken by the respondents on 271966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 14 1 1971 published Ill the Punjab Government Gazette dated 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 for short the 1 n9 . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 1 54 m2 4 1 FA0No4780 of2003 e FnAeOnNoe 4781 of 2003 FA0 Non 4782 of 2003 FAO Noe 4783 Of 2003 FeAe040 4784 of 2003 FA0 Non 4785 of 2003 FnAe Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAaOeNos 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noe 4788 Of 2003 Act of 1952 The competent authority offered compensation forthe acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the C same was not to the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair C I andjust compensation However no action was taken by the t5 respondents on this request of the appeilants or their I The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 L 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 Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honbie Supreme CO Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated 7 Z 20121991 passedIn Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 but tl 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 Judge vide common Award dated 662002 passed in Land Acquisition Cases of the appellantsheld that the appellants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rse600001 per acre However no sblati u m and interest was granted to the appeilants Accordingly these appeals have been . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 9 8 C 1 FAO No 4780 of 20030 AeOe Noe 4781 of 2003 9 FJO Noa 4782 of 2003 FeAe0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAO Noa 4784 of 20030 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FAO No 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FaA0 Noe 4788 of 2003 tlled by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent 1 additionto market value of the Iand and interest Itl 0 No have been filed by the respondents 0 I I have heardthelearned counselfor the parties and have C0 gonethrough the records of the case I In view of the facts mentioned above two questions Z arise for determination by this Court in these appeals which 2 Ct are I Cl Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z C enhancement of compensation beyond Cn Rs600001 per acre as determined by the 7 Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the Qm impugnedAward and iio Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where a cq u isition of Iand has been made under theActof 19520 So far as the first question IS concerned the claim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge 64rbitrato was that the Iand acquired had potentialityof . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 9 e4 1 Ia FnAe Noa 4780 of 2003 1 FeAeOaNoe 4781 of 2003 FO No 4782 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4783 of 2003 FO No 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FaAe0 Noe 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe Noe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the subeurban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001oer kanal on the date of 1 Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that O compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs8000e per kanal may 0 I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the 9 entire evidence Ied by the parties and hearing their Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001m per acre ie akin to the demand made by 2 the Iandowners Considering the aforesaid fact the value of the I acquirediand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per acre cannot be faulted with Question No l IS therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents C0 Now coming to question No2 ie whether award of W2 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where Qm 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 given hereinafter At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the case of Dilawar Sinqh and others Vs Union of India and others 3T 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: 54 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 1 57 re a5e 4 r FAONoa4780 of2003 P FeAe00Non 4781 of 2003 FAO No 4782 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4783 of 2003 FA0 Noa 4784 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FeAaOeNOe 4786 of 2003 FAOa Noa 4787 of 2003 and FAeOa Noe 4788 of 2003 As noticed a bove possession of the Iand of the appeliants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 1 L However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 14 1971 published Ill the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 I 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 C9 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 7 C for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 201201991 passed by this CO Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months 7 Z from the date of the said order The respondentsthen went to file Clm Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme Court of India making a chailenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 It was after Honble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition Oled by the respondents vide order dated 27201995 that the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the PunjabGovernment vide NotiOcation dated 1311995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 2771966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 1 58 1 V e6 6 44 r FaAsOeNoa 4780 of 2003 1 FeAeOaNoe 4781 of 2003 F10 No 4782 of 2003 FeAeOeNoa4783 of2003 FAO No 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4786 of 2003 FAO No 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noa 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was 1 by the Iearned District Judgeon 66 2002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get com pensation at the 0 I rate of Rs600001 per acre No order with regard to payment of C5 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of I compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judge 0 In the case of Union of India Vs Hari Krishan I Khosla lDeadl bv Lrsp JT 1992 CSl SC 5742 1993 Suppl2 r SCC 149 Honble SupremeCourt in paragraph 79 of the Z judgmentobserved as underl QO 7 Il This is a case in which for 16 years Z Cl no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS justand proper to applythe principleIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vs Union of India Civil Appeal NosA70 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 111985 The Court held as underl Il Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 m7 1 FaAe0 No 4780 of 20030 012 1 FAO No 4781 of 20030 FeAe0nNoe 4782 of 2003 FAs0e NOe 4783 of 2003 FeAaOoNoe 4784 of 20030 FeAa00Noa 4785 of 2003 FAOe Noa 4786 Of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FJO Noa 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not 11 made by the Union of India for a perlodof 0 16 yearS we think this is a fit case in which CO solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the I 9 amount of compensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appellants We are ma king this order havingregard to the fact that the I Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended C3 with a view to providing solatiu m at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest atthe rate OO of 9 per cent per 11 annum mao Z Q As noUced above in this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping in Vlew the observation of the Honble SupremeCourt in the afor mentioned cases I have no hesitation in holdingthat the appellants are entitled to solatium as prayed for by them along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possession of their Iands had been taken by the respondents 1e 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 e8m 1 FeAeOeNoe4780 of2003 FeAeOaNoe 4781 of 2003 f FAe00 Noe 4782 of 20030 FAO Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4784 of 2003 FAO No785 of 20030 FeAaOeNoa 4786 of 2003 FeAeOsNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNOe 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 1 them in these appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001 C per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C40 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandownersw I appellantswas taken by the respondents1ee 271966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this 1 judgment in each ofthe appeal I 0 1 Z cS 1m April 2011 CMOHINDER PALI 1 ak OUDGE f10 7 Z Ll eQ8 Ilr9 Or l1 Ai 1 9 V . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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