FAO No. 535 of 1985 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 3.12.2009 (1) FAO No. 535 of 1985 (O&M) Khoji Ram alias Khoji and others .. Appellants. v. Union of India and others .. Respondents. (2) FAO No. 692 of 1985 (O&M) Union of India .. Appellant v. Khoji Ram alias Khoji and others .. Respondents (3) FAO No. 693 of 1985 (O&M) and Cross Objection No. 13-CII of 1988 Union of India .. Appellant v. Sansar Singh and others .. Respondents (4) FAO No. 694 of 1985 (O&M) and Union of India .. Appellant v. Hans Raj and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union of India. None 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. 535 of 1985 has been filed by the land owners claiming FAO No. 535 of 1985 [2] enhancement of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. In FAO No. 693 of 1985, cross objections have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation. FAO Nos. 692 to 694 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. However, the facts have been extracted from FAO No. 535 of 1985. Briefly, the facts of the case are that total land measuring 82 kanals 17 marlas, situated in village Bharoli Kalan was acquired by Union of India for defence purposes vide notification dated 27.3.1970, 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 5.3.1984, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was appointed as Arbitrator for determination of the compensation payable to the land owners. The Arbitrator, vide award dated 1.2.1985, determined compensation to the land owners for the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 150/- per marla. The land owners were also held entitled to receive solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% per annum till payment. 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. Heard learned counsel for Union of India 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: FAO No. 535 of 1985 [3] “ 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 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 FAO No. 535 of 1985 [4] determined payable in the award by the Arbitrator is merely Rs. 150/- per mala, the amount of compensation as well as the interest and solatium, 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 solatium and 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), in the peculiar facts of these cases, it is directed that the excess amount on account of interest and solatium already paid to the land owners in the present case shall not be recovered from them. As no one has appeared for the appellants in the appeal and cross objections filed by the land owners, the same are dismissed in default. The appeals filed by Union of India stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.12.2009 mk