60 mle n FAnOe Noe 4780 of 2003 FaAe0nNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FAOn Noe 4783 of 2003 FaAn0 No 4784 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FA0n Noe 4786 of 2003 FsAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAOe Noa 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C Date of Decisionl April25 2011 0 1 C3 C5 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellants Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India I Mohinder Pal Je Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 No 4780 to FA0 0 CO NoA788 of 2003 as they i anse out of the common 7 acquisitionof Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue Qm estate of Village Mahal Tehsil and District Amritsar was requisitioned underle provisionsof Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 77 1966 and possession of the Iand was taken by the respondents on 271966 Subsequen the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 14011971 published Irl the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable PropertyAct 1952 or short the 1 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 4e 4 FeA00 Noe 4780 of 20030 FaAeOaNoa 4781 of 20030 FJ40 Noe 4782 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4783 of 2003 FAeOe Noa 4784 of 2003 FeA0 Noe 4785 of 2003 F1s0 Nos 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe NOe 4788 of 2003 Act of 19527 The competentauthority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellantsat a Iower rate and the 1 same was not acceptableto the appellants A requestwas made by 0 the appellantsfor appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair 0 I and just compensation However no action was taken by the C5 respondents on this request of the appellants or their I 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 respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months from the date of the said order The respondentsfiled Z Specia Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme m Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated 2 Z 20121991 passedItl Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 but Qm 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 passedin Land AcquisitionCases of the appellantsheld that the appellants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rse600001 per acre However no solatium and interest was grantedto the appellants Accordingly these appeals have been KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 62 8e FeAeOsNoe 4780 of 2003 AeOe Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAOn Noa 4782 of 2003 FA0e NOe4783 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4784 of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4785 of 2003 ll FeAn0 Noa 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOnNoe 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation for grantof solatium at the rate of 15 per cent in addition to market value of the Iand and interest 0 No crossobjectionshave been filed1 the respondents 0 I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the partiesand have C9 gone throughthe records of the case I In view of the facts mentioned above two questions Z arise for determination by this Court Itl these appeals which r are 4 I Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of compensation beyond DO Rs600001 per acre as determined by the a Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the impugned Award 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 64rbitrato was that the Iand acquired had potentialityof KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 63 e4 4 FaA0e No 4780 of 2003 FAOe No 4781 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4782 of 20030 FaAeOeNoa 4783 of 2003 FsAeOsNoa 4784 of 2003 FAe0n Non 4785 of 2003 FeAn0 Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FOe Noe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the sullrban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001 per kanal on the date of 1 r NotiOcation It was thus prayedby the Iandowners that 0 compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may 0 be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the 0 entire evidence Ied by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001 per acre ie akin to the demand made by the Iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid fact the value of the acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below iee Rs600001 per acre cannot be faulted with Question Nol is therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents C Now coming to questionNo 2 ie whether award of 7 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where 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 others JT 2010 C111 SC 556 Honble SupremeCourt had answered question No 2 as framed in this case in favour of the Iandowners by makingreference to vanous other judgments of the Honble SupremeCourt KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 64 e5 1 FeAeOeNoa 4780 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAn00Noe 4782 of 2003 FAeOe Noa 4783 of 2003 FsAeOaNoe 4784 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe4785 of2003 FAOe Nos 4786 of 2003 FAnOe Noa 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe Noe 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possessionof the Iand of the 1 appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 However the iand was acquired vide notice dated 0 14 1 1971 published tn the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 t5 As compensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I competent authoritYsame was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners r for appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civil Writ Petition C No3462 of 1989 in this Court wherein directionwas issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20121991 passed by this m Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months 7 Z from the date of the said order The respondentsthen went to file e Speciai Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 tll the Honble Supreme Court of India making a challengeto the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 It was after Honble SupremeCourt dismissed the Speciai Leave Petition flled 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 273 1966 it KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 65 6 15 FnAs0nNoe 4780 of 20030 FeAeOeNoa 4781 of 2003 FeAe0eNoe4782 of2003 FeAaOeNOe4783 of 20030 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FaAaOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAeOa Noe 4788 of 2003 took more than twentynine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was m pronouncedby the IearnedDistrict Judgeon 66 2002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensationat the 0 rate of Rs600001 per acree No order with regard to paymentof C5 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of I compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judgee Ct In the case of Union of India Vse Hari Krishan I Khosla lDeadl bv Lrs JT 1992 51 SC 5742 1993 Suppl2 Co SCC 149 Honble SupremeCourt in paragraph 79 of the Z judgment observed as underl Ol m Z ll This is a case in which for 16 years Qm no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS just and proper to applythe principleIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vs Union of India cCivil Appeal Nose470 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 11 19850 The Court held as underl ll Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 66 7 FeAeOeNoe 4780 of 2003 FnA0 Noe 4781 of 2003 FAeOe NOe 4782 of 20030 FAe0aNon4783 of2003 FnAnO Noe 4784 of 2003 FAeOe Noa 4785 of 2003 FeAa0 Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FaAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not C 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 0 amount of com pensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appellants We are making r this order havingregardto the fact thatthe I Iaw has Ill the meanwhiie been amended C3 with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest atthe rate f10 of 9 per cent per annun Il 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 aforee 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 respondentsiee 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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 67 8e FnAeOnNoe 4780 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4781 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4782 of 2003 FeAeOsNoe 4783 of 2003 FeAsOnNoe 4784 of 2003 FsAaOeNOe4785 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FA0 Noe 4788 of 2003 to the extent that the appellantsandowners are held entitled to 1 solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by lr them in these appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001 0 I per acre alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandownerse I appellantswas taken by the respondentsie 271966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this 2 Q judgmentin each of the appeal I r Z April 2011 CMOHINDER PALI t ak JUDGE CQ 17 Z 1 Il 6 J 5 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.08.28 14: 48 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