FAO No. 906 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 906 of 1989 Date of decision: November 10, 2009 Union of India ........ Appellant Versus Girdari Lal and sons .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (oral) Vide this order, all the connected appeals, i.e. F.A.O. Nos.906 to 911 of 1989 shall stand disposed of as these appeals are against the common order dated 27.01.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. However, for the sake of reference, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 906 of 1989. FAO No. 571 of 1989 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement stands dismissed by this Court by an order of even date. FAO No. 906 of 1989 2 In view of the claimants appeal having been dismissed on account of the fact that the award amount of compensation i.e. Rs.350/- per marla already stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. titled as Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, JT 1992 (5) SC 574, arising out of the same award dated 27.01.1989 passed by the Arbitrator, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, the instant appeal will have to be dismissed accordingly. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Arbitrator has erred in allowing the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per anum for the subsequent years till the date of payment of the compensation awarded. It is further submitted that no solatium and interest is permissible under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgement rendered by this Court in FAO No. 142 of 1987 titled Shrimati Maha Devi widow and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 15.05.2009. However, this Court vide order dated 03.08.2009 passed in FAO No. 741 of 1987 titled as Onkar Nath v. Union of India and others, after considering the various judgements rendered by the Apex Court and also taking into account the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed after a lapse of 18 years, allowed the solatium and interest to the claimants in the similar circumstances while holding as under:- “Learned counsel for the respondents agrees that the said matter be disposed of in terms of judgement dated FAO No. 906 of 1989 3 05-10-1987 passed in LPA No.658 of 1983 only to the extent vide which the compensation was enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.350/- per marla but objected to the grant of solatium and interest. However, the attention of this Court has been invited to para 78 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Union of India (supra), wherein, reliance was placed in the case of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.470 & 471 of 1985, disposed of by this Court on 11th February, 1985), wherein, in view of the fact that appointment of the Arbitrator was not made by the Union of India for more than 16 years, solatium @ 30% of the amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 9% was awarded. It is an admitted position that in the present case also, the land was acquired on 28-02-1970, whereas, the Arbitrator was appointed after a gap of 15 years on 14-03-1985. The facts of the present case are, therefore, squarely covered for the entitlement of solatium. Para 78 of the judgment titled as Union of India (supra) is reproduced below. “ 78. XXX XXX XXX Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not made by the Union of India for period of 16 years, we think this is a fit case in which solatium at the rate of 30% of the amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 9% per annum should be awarded to the appellants. We are making this order having regard to the fact that the law has in the meanwhile been amended with a view to providing solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum.” A Division Bench of this Court in Madan Lal and FAO No. 906 of 1989 4 others vs. Union of India and others 1993(2) RLR 743 allowed the solatium and interest to the petitioners in similar circumstances where the arbitrator was not appointed for number of years. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any distinguishing features in the instant case as to why the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement in the case of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi (supra), Union of India (supra) as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Madan Lal and others (supra) cannot apply to the facts of the present case.” Whereas, a perusal of the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Shrimati Maha Devi (Supra) shows that neither the para 78 of the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India (Supra) was brought to the notice of the Court, nor the judgements rendered in the case of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi (supra) and Madan Lal and others v. Union of India and others, 1993 (2) RLR 743, which followed the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India, while granting solatium and interest on the principle amount to the appellant. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India etc. v Inder Singh and another, LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and Cross objection No. 1 of 1992 , while relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla as well as Harbans Singh Shanni Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors and judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Madan Lal and others (supra), did not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting solatium FAO No. 906 of 1989 5 and interest to the land owners. Thus, no doubt that the law with respect to the grant of solatium and interest on the principle amount is settled by the Apex Court to the extent that in case, the act is silent for the grant of solatium and interest, the same cannot be awarded. However, while laying down the aforesaid criteria, an exception has been carved out as discussed above that in case the Arbitrator is not appointed for a number of years, the solatium and interest may be awarded in the interest of justice. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the land was acquired in the year 1970 whereas, the Arbitrator was appointed on 01.03.1988, i.e. after a lapse of almost 18 years. In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Onkar Nath (supra) and Union of India etc. v Inder Singh and another, (LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and Cross objection No. 1 of 1992) (supra), all the connected appeals, i.e., FAO Nos. 906 to 911 of 1989 are accordingly dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 10, 2009 mohan