1 55 4 4 F10 No 4780 of 2003 4 FnAa0 Non 4781 of 2003 FaAeOaNoe 4782 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAeOnNon 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FnAe0 Noe 4786 of 2003 Ae0e Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 Aprii 5 2011 0 1 0 I C5 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the a ppellants I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India I Mohinder Pal Je C3 Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 No 4780 to FAO r 10 t CQ NoA788 of 2003 as they arise out of the common S7 acquisitionof Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue estate of Village Maha1 Tehsil and District Amritsar was requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 77 1966 and possession of the Iand was taken by the respondents on 2771966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 1411971 published in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of ImmovabIe Property Act 1952 for short the 1 . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 1 56 e2 11 FeA0O Noe 4780 of 2003 e FLOe Nom 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FeAn0nNoe 4783 of 2003 FeAaOeNOe 4784 of 2003 FA0 No 4785 of 2003 FAOeNoe4786 of2003 FeAe0eNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOnNoa 4788 of 2003 Act of 19521 The competent authority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the 1 r sarne was not acceptableto the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair U I andjust 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 No 3462 of 1989 C and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months from the date of the said order The respondentsfiled Z SpecialLeave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme oo Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated 7 Z 20121991 passedIn Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 but CL the same was dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt vide order dated 271995 Uitimately 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 appeilantsheld that the appeilants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs600001 per acre However no solatium and interest was grantedto the appellants Accordingly theset appeals have been . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 57 3e rJ FnAeOeNoa 4780 of 2003 e FAeOe Non 4781 of 2003 FaAeOIloe 4782 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 FAO Noe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FeAeOnNo 4786 of 2003 FAO No 4787 of 2003 and FA0 Noe 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grantof solatium at the rate of 15 per cent 1 r in addition to market value of the Iand and interest 0 No crossobjectionshave been filed by the respondents 0 I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have C5 gonethrough the records of the case I In view of the facts mentioned above two questions Z arise for determination by this Court in these appeals which f are I L0 iI Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z c enhancement of com pensation beyond C0 Rse600001oer acre as determined by the 7 Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the ll impugnedAward and iiJ Whether award of soiatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of Iand has been made under the Actof 1952 So far as the first question IS concerned the ciaim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge 64rbitratorlwas that the Iand acquired had potentialityof . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 58 4 1 F10 Noe 4780 of 2003 e FAe00 Noe 4781 of 2003 FAO Noe 4782 of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4783 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4784 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4785 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4786 Of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4787 of 2003 and FmAeOeN 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the subvurban area of Amritsar and had potential value of Rs80001 per kanal on the date of Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that O compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may C be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the 0 entire evidence Ied by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z2 rate of RsS000001 per acre ie akin to the demand made by the Iandowners Considering the aforesaid fact the value of the I acquirediand as assessed by the Court beiow ie Rs600001 per acre cannot be faulted with Question Nol is therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents r10 Now coming to question No2 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 given hereinafter At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the case of Dilwar Sinah and others VsJnion of India and others JT 2010 C11 SC 556 Honbie SupremeCourt had answered question No 2 as framed in this case in favour of the Iandowners by makingreference to various other judgments of the Honble SupremeCourt . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 59 e5e FeAeOeNoe 4780 of 2003 FaAaOmNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAe0eNoa 4782 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 FA0 Noa 4784 of 2003 FaAe0 Noe 4785 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNom 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNom 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 1 l However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 14 1971 pubiished In the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 I 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 0 As compensation on the Iower side had been offered by the I competentauthority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the iandowners m 02 for appointment of 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 direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20 121991 passed by this CQ Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months W2 Z from the date of the said order The respondents then went to file Clm Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme Court of India making a challenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 It was after Honble SupremeCourt dismissed the Special Leave Petition fiied 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 Notification dated 13111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 2771966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 60 e6e 4e FAO Noe 4780 Of 2003 4 FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4782 of 20030 FAe0e No1783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FsAeOeNo1785 of2003 FeAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FJO 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 took rnore than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was 1 Q by the Iearned District Judgeon 66 2002 hoiding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensationat the 0 I rate of Rs600001 per acre No order with regard to payment of C9 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judgee r In the case of Union of India Vsa Hari Krishan I Khosla tDeadl bv Lrsp JT 1992 51 SC 5742 1993 Suppl SCC 149 Honble Supreme Court Itl paragraph 79 of the Z judgmentobserved as underl OO 7 Z ll This is a case in which for 16 years Ll no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS r just and proper to applythe principleIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vse Union of India Civil Appeal NosA70 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 11 19850 The Court held as under1 Il Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 1 e e l FAeOn Noe 4780 of 2003 4r FeAnOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FnAa0 Nos 4782 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FAsOa Nos 4785 of 2003 FaAe0eNoa 4786 of 2003 FAe0Iloa 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not tm 0 made by the Union of India for a period of 0 16 yearS we think this is a fitcase in which 0 solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the C9 amount of compensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appellants We are making m r this order havingregard to the fact that the Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest atthe rate QO of 9 per cent per annum 11 7 Z r1 As noUced 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 afore 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 possessionof their Iands had been taken by the respondents tee 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are aliowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 e8 1 4 FeAeOmNoe 4780 of 2003 9 FsAeOeNoa 4781 of 2003 C6 FAO Noa 4782 of 2003 3 6 FAO No 4783 of 2003 FsAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FeAOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FAOe No786 of 20030 FeOe Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 to the extent that the are held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by m them in these appeais on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar 1e Rs6000010 0 I per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the iandownerse I appellantswas taken bythe respondentsiee 271966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this 2 judgment in each of the appeal I C 7 Z 1a April 2011 CMOHINDER PAL I 1 ak JUDGE CO Z Om e8 e rJ U vl . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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