IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.6698 of 1989 Date of Decision: May 08,2008 Balwant Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goel,Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners in respect of their lands requisitioned in the year 1964 which was acquired subsequently vide Government Gazette Notification dated 1.2.1972 which the Central Government had decided to acquire under the Defence of India Act, 1952 read with Section 25 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and for appointment of Arbtirator to assess the market value of the land in accordance with Section 8 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and also to pay solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the market value of the land including solatium for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till payment. Case of the petitioners, as stated in the writ petition, in brief is that the land of the petitioners had been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1952 read with CWP No. 6698 of 1989 -2- Section 25 of the Act. Vide notification Annexure P1, dated 1.2.1972. Possession of the land had been taken from the petitioners in the year 1964 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1972. Petitioners were not paid compensation after assessing the market value as per `the Act'. Petitioners had been approaching the authorities for referring the matter for arbitration under Section 8 of `the Act' and rule 9 of the rules framed under `the Act' Respondent No.3 in its written statement admitted the fact that the land of the petitioners had been requisitioned in the year 1964 and was later acquired under `the Act'. The objections filed by the owners/interested persons were heard and decided. Full and final payment with regard to the amount of compensation had been paid to the interested persons. Since compensation had been accepted by the interested persons and agreements in form `K' under the Act were executed, the question of appointment of Arbitrator did not arise. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2655 as under:- “It is now well settled legal position in law that under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, there is no provision to pay enhanced solatium and interest : and Amendment Act, i.e. Act 68 of 1984 has no application. It is also well settled legal position that the grant of solatium and CWP No. 6698 of 1989 -3- interest is an integral part of the process of determination of compensation. The District Court has no jurisdiction to amend the award and to grant solatium and interest exercising the power under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of jurisdiction in not removing the error committed by the Tribunal.” As per the judgment cited above, the petitioners are not entitled to claim enhanced solatium and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as there is no provisions under `the Act' to pay enhanced solatium and interest. It has been averred in the written statement that the compensation had been accepted by the interested persons and agreements as per form `K' of the Act were executed. In these circumstances, the question of appointment of Arbitrator does not arise. Copies of the said forms have been attached with the written statement as per Annexure R1 to Annexure R20. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) May 08, 2008 Judge arya