FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 3.12.2009 (1) FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) Union of India and others .. Appellants. v. Kishan Singh and others .. Respondents. (2) FAO No. 1079 of 1987 and Cross Objections No. 77-CII of 1989 (O&M) Union of India and others .. Appellants. v. Partap Singh .. Respondent (3) FAO No. 1080 of 1987 and Cross Objections No. 62-CII of 1989 (O&M) The Union of India and others .. Appellants. v. Massa Devi and others ` .. Respondents (4) FAO No. 1081 of 1987 (O&M) Union of India and others .. Appellants v. Kishan Singh and others .. Respondents (5) FAO No. 1082 of 1987 and Cross Objections No. 63-CII of 1989 (O&M) Union of India and others .. Appellants v. Smt. Seeto Devi and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) [2] 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. 1078 to 1082 of 1987 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 No. 62, 63 and 77-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. 1078 of 1987. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the land situated in the area of village Baghar, Had Bast No. 391, Tehsil Pathankot was acquired by Union of India for defence purposes vide notification dated 5.3.1970, 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 9.12.1986, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was appointed as Arbitrator for determination of the compensation payable to the land owners. The Arbitrator, vide award dated 25.3.1987, determined compensation payable to the land owners for the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 1,000/- per kanal. 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), 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 FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) [3] in the year 1970, whereas the Arbitrator was appointed in the year 1986. 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 the award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 3 are allowed and the finding recorded thereunder is FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) [4] 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. 1,000/- per kanal. 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), 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 far as claim of the landowners in the cross-objections for further enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions made, considering the fact that the learned Arbitrator has relied upon an earlier judgment of this court whereby, for the acquisition carried out in the vicinity, vide notification dated 23.8.1972, Rs. 1,100/- per kanal was awarded as compensation, whereas in the present case the acquisition was vide notification dated 5.3.1970. Considering the gap of about two years and five months, the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,000/- per kanal which cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel for the parties have also not pointed as to whether in any other case pertaining to the same acquisition this court had either enhanced or reduced the compensation as determined by the learned court below. FAO No. 1078 of 1987 (O&M) [5] The appeals as well as cross-objections stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.12.2009 mk