FAO No. 303 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 3.12.2009 (1) FAO No. 303 of 1989 (O&M) Union of India and another .. Appellants. v. Paras Ram and others .. Respondents. (2) FAO No. 304 of 1989 and Cross Objections No. 71-CII of 1989 (O&M) Union of India and another .. Appellants. v. Kaushalaya and others .. Respondents (3) FAO No. 305 of 1989 (O&M) Union of India and another .. Appellants. v. Pritam and another ` .. Respondents (4) FAO No. 442 of 1989 (O&M) Pritam Dass (Deceased) through LRs .. Appellants v. Union of India and others .. Respondents (5) FAO No. 443 of 1989 (O&M) Pritam (Deceased) through LRs .. Appellants v. Union of India and others .. Respondents. (6) FAO No. 444 of 1989 (O&M) Paras Ram and others .. Appellants v. Union of India and others .. Respondents. FAO No. 303 of 1989 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. Talwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned appeals and cross objections, as the same arise out of a common award of the Arbitrator. FAO Nos. 303 to 305 of 1989 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. FAO Nos. 442 to 444 of 1989 and Cross Objections No. 71-CII of 1989 have been filed by the land owners claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. However, the facts have been extracted from FAO No. 303 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that total land measuring 100 kanals and 10 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Bhadroya was acquired by Union of India for defence purposes vide notification dated 28.2.1970, issued under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (for short, `the Act'). Since the compensation awarded by Union of India was not acceptable to the land owners, they sought appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act. Vide notification dated 3.3.1988, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was appointed as Arbitrator for determination of the compensation payable to the land owners. The Arbitrator, vide award dated 20.1.1989, determined compensation to the land owners for the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 350/- per mala. The land owners were also held entitled to receive solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years. The only issue raised by learned counsel for Union of India in the bunch of appeals is that for the acquisition carried under the Act, the land owners are not entitled to the grant of interest and solatium, 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), FAO No. 303 of 1989 [3] 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 acquired way back in the year 1970, whereas the Arbitrator was appointed in the year 1988. 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 and solatium on the amount of compensation for the land acquired 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 FAO No. 303 of 1989 [4] 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 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 acquired way back in the year 1970. The amount of compensation, as has been determined payable in the award by the Arbitrator is merely Rs. 350/- per marla. The amount of compensation as well as the interest and solatium has already been paid to the land owners long back, however, the same 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 solatium and interest at the rates provided for under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but only at 6% per annum. But the amount if calculated in terms of individual holdings of land owners 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 amount on account of interest and solatium already paid to the land owners in the present cases shall not be recovered from them. As far as the claim of the land owners in one of the appeal and the cross objections filed by them for further enhancement of compensation is concerned, suffice to state that the same is totally misconceived as the compensation has been determined in terms of earlier judgment of this Court, as has been recorded in para 10 of the award. Hence, the same are rejected. The appeals as well as cross objections stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.12.2009 mk