FAO 871 of 1985 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 3.12.2009 (1) FAO No. 871 of 1985 and Cross Objections No. 129-CII of 1985 (O&M) Union of India .. Appellant v. Miss Sharu Puri and others .. Respondents. (2) FAO No. 872 of 1985 and Cross Objections No. 130-CII of 1985(O&M) Union of India .. Appellant v. Rajiv Puri and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common award of the Arbitrator. FAO No. 871 and 872 of 1985 have been filed by Union of India praying for setting aside of the award of the Arbitrator, whereby interest and solatium has been awarded to the land owners. Cross Objections Nos. 129 and 130-CII of 1985 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation. However, the facts have been extracted from FAO No. 871 of 1985. Briefly, the facts of the case are that total land measuring 128 kanals and 12 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Gumtala sub-urban, Amritsar, was jointly owned and possessed by Jagdish Chander Puri and his father Dewan Roshan Lal. After the death of Dewan Roshan Lal, his inheritance was mutated in favour of his legal heirs. Collector, Amritsar requisitioned the said FAO 871 of 1985 [ 2] property and the Military Estate Officer, Jalandhar took its actual possession on 22.2.1967. Compensation payable to the land owners was assessed at Rs. 280/- per acre per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed application under Section 30 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (for short, `the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. Additional District Judge, Amritsar was appointed as Arbitrator for determination of compensation payable to the land owners. The Arbitrator, vide award dated 22.12.1984, held as under: “In conclusion, it is held that the compensation in respect of the requisitioned land in all the three land references shall be paid to the claim petitioners @ Rs. 1200/- per acre per annum less the amount already paid to them on account of compensation determined by the Competent Authority, i.e. Collector, Amritsar. Further the claimant- petitioners shall be entitle to realize interest @ 6% per annum on the balance amount of compensation w.e.f. the date on which the compensation determined by the Collector, Amritsar was paid to them till the realization of it (balance compensation amount). Amount of balance compensation shall be payable to the claimant- petitioners in all the three land references in proportion to their respective shares or the share of their predecessor-in-interest qua the requisitioned land as specified in the entires in the jamabandi pertaining to the year 1967-68.” The only issue raised by learned counsel for Union of India in the appeals is that for the compensation payable on account of requisition of land, the land owners are not entitled to the grant of interest, as there is no provision for the same under the Act. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parmal Singh and others, (2009) 1 SCC 618 and this Court in Smt. Lalita Pathania and others v. Randip Singh Pathania and others, (2009-3) PLR 680. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that in terms of the judgment of this Court in Smt. Lalita Pathania's case (supra), the land owners herein are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on equitable grounds, considering the fact that there is abnormal delay in conclusion of proceedings for determination of compensation as the land was requisitioned in 1967, whereas the Arbitrator was appointed after many years. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as the legal position regarding entitlement of the land owners to the payment of interest on the amount of compensation for the land FAO 871 of 1985 [ 3] requisitioned under the Act is concerned, the issue is no more res integra. It has been authoritatively considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149 that there being no provision providing for interest and solatium on the amount of compensation in the Act, the land owners are not entitled to the same. The issue thereafter was considered by this Court in Smt. Lalita Pathania's case (supra), wherein after considering the law on the subject, it was opined as under: “ After giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appeals filed by the Union of India deserves to be allowed. No doubt, that at the time of passing of the order by the Arbitrator when he awarded solatium @ 15% per annum and interest @ 6% per annum, the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) and others (supra) was holding the field as the order passed by the Arbitrator is of 29.9.1989. However, the said judgment of the Full Bench has now been over-ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs (supra) and the fact that there is no provisions in the statute for the award of solatium and interest, the claimants are not entitled to solatium and interest at all.” It was further opined in the aforesaid judgment that on equitable consideration, the land owners would be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation @ 6% per annum. Paragraph 23 of the judgment is extracted below: “It was also held that the property was acquired in the year 1965 and more than four decades have elapsed whereas the land owners are yet to get compensation in entirety. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount on equitable grounds. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, FAO Nos. 1319 and 1320 of 1989 filed by the claimants/land owners against the award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 3 are allowed and the finding recorded thereunder is hereby reversed. FAO Nos. 1346 and 1347 of 1989 filed by Union of India against issue No. 6 are allowed only to the extent that the appellants shall not be entitled to any solatium as it is not provided in the Statute. However, since the possession of the land in question was taken by Union of India in the year 1964 and the arbitrator was appointed in the year 1986, the FAO 871 of 1985 [ 4] claimants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on equitable grounds in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Parmal Singh (supra), from the date of acquisition till date of payment/deposit. However, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the parties shall bear their own costs.” However, still considering the fact that the land in question was requisitioned way back in the year 1970, the amount of compensation, as has been determined payable in the award by the Arbitrator is merely Rs. 1200/- per acre per annum. The amount of compensation as well as the interest, as has already been paid to the land owners long back, would be refundable to Union of India. If calculated in terms of the aforesaid judgment, considering the fact that the land owners are not entitled to interest at the rates provided for under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but only at 6% per annum on equitable grounds, would be quite meager. Therefore, while accepting the appeals filed by Union of India technically on the legal issues and disposing of the same in terms of the judgment of this Court in Smt. Lalita Pathania's case (supra), it is directed that the excess amount on account of interest already paid to the land owners in the present case shall not be recovered from them. As far as determination of compensation on account of requisition of the property prior to this acquisition is concerned, in my opinion, considering the evidence produced on record by the parties, the learned Arbitrator fairly assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per annum per acre. Documents in the form of khasra girdawaris, Ex. AX1, Ex. AX2 and Ex. AX3 were produced on record whereby for the period in question small portions of land were leased out between Rs. 1,100/- to Rs. 1,250/- per annum per acre. The aforesaid evidence was corroborated by the statement of PW9 Nirmal Singh Dhillon, District Agriculture Officer, Amritsar. Even according to the figure furnished by him also the average return from the kind of acquisition land was about Rs. 1,200/- per annum per acre. As against that evidence led by the landowners was not trustworthy. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, in my opinion, fair assessment of compensation has been made on account of requisition of land for the period in question. The appeals as well as cross objections stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.12.2009 mk