53 4 1 e1 m FAeOe Noe 4780 of 2003 4 FAO No 4781 of 2003 FeAnOeNoe4782 of2003 FeAeO Noe 4783 of 2003 FeA0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FaA00 Noe 4785 of 2003 FeAeO Noe 4786 of 2003 FAeOe Noa 4787 of 2003 and FeA0 Non 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 Q Date of Decision April 2 o 2011 0 1 0 I C9 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellants Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India I Mohinder PaL J Z This judgment will disposeof FAO No 4780 to FA0 ol CQ NoA788 of 2003 as they arise out of the common 2 acquisition of Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue 11 estate of Village Mahal Tehsil and District Amritsar was requisitioned underhe 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 271966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 141 1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 for short the . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 54 j e2 8K FeAe00Noe 4780 of 2003 Ol A1 FOe Noe 4781 of 2003 F4O No 4782 of 2003 FeAeOeNo 4783 of 2003 FaAe0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNos 4787 of 2003 and FAO No 4788 of 2003 Act of 1952 The competentauthority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellants at a iower rate and the 1 Ct same was not to the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair C3 I and just compensation However no action was taken by the C5 respondents on this request of the appellants or their I predecessors4nnterest The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of filing Civii Writ Petition No462 of 1989 2 and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three l3 months from the date of the said order The respondentsfiled Z SpeciaILeave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme C0 Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated a7 Z 20121991 passedIil Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 but the same was dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt vide order dated 271995 Ultimately the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 130111995 The District Judge vide common Award dated 662002 passed in Land AcquisitionCases of the appeliantsheld that the appellants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs600001 per acre However no solatium and interest was grantedto the appeliants Accordingly these appeals have been . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 l 55 e63 1 40 FeAeOaNoe 4780 of 2003 1V FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FAONo4783 of2003 FAeOe Non 4784 of 2003 FAaOs NOa 4785 of 2003 FAO Non 4786 of 2003 FA No 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe Noa 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent tm r in additionto market value of the iand and interest 0 No have been filed by the respondents 0 I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have C9 gone through 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 C are C0 il Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of com pensation beyond C0 Rs600001 per acre as determined by the n 4 Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the CL impugnedAward7 and i Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of Iand has been made under the Act of 1952 So far as the first question IS concerned the claim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge Arbitrator was that the Iand acquired had potentialityof . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 56 90 4e 0 FeAeOeNoe 4780 of 2003 1 FA0a Noe 4781 Of 2003 FAe0n Noa 4782 of 2003 FeA0e Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAnOaNoe 4784 of 2003 FAn0Non4785 of2003 FaA0e No 4786 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4787 of 2003 and FAO No 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the suburban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001oer kanal on the date of 1 Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that O compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may U I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the C5 entire evidence Ied by the parties and hearing their Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001 per acre ie akin to the demand made by m CC the iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid factthe value of the I acquirediand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per acre cannot be faulted with Question No l is therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents 11 Now coming to questionNo2 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 Dilawar Sinqh and others Vse Union of India and others JT 2010 Clll SC 556 Honble Supreme Court had answered question No2 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: 55 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 rr Se 19 FaAeOeNoa 4780 of 2003 1 4 FeAe0 Noe 4781 of 2003 FAOe No 4782 of 2003 F10n Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoa 4784 of 2003 FAeOe Noa 4785 of 2003 FaA0 Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOsNoa 4787 of 2003 and FAeOeNoe4788 of2003 As noticed a bove possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 1 C14 However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 14 1971 published Ifl the PunjabGovern ment Gazette dated C0 I 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 0 As compensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I com petent authority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners Q for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20121991 passed bythis CQ Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months m3 Z from the date of the said order The respondents then went to file Cl 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 filed by the respondents vide order dated 2721995 that the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Punjab Government vide NotiOcation dated 13111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 2771966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 pe1 m6 lfJ FJONoe4780 Of2003 1 4 FnAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FeAa0 Noe 4782 of 2003 FAOa Noe 4783 of 2003 FO Nos 4784 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4785 Of 2003 FeAe0Noe4786 of2003 FaAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAe0aNoe 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was m by the Iearned District Judgeon 60 2002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensationat the 0 I rate of Rs600001oer acre No order with regard to payment of 0 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judge L In the case of Union of India Vs Hari Krishan Khosla lDeadl bv Lrse JT 1992 Sl SC 5742 1993 Suppl CO SCC 149 Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 79 of the Z judgmentobserved as under r 7 Z Il This is a case in which for 16 years Cl no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS just and proper to applythe principleIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni DeviVs Union of India Civii Appeal NosA70 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court Oll February 11 1985 The Court heldas underl U Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 7 r FAa0 Noe 4780 of 2003 4 FaAaOnNoe 4781 of 2003 FAO Noa 4782 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4783 of 20030 FAO No 4784 of 2003 FAO No 4785 of 2003 FeAnOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOnNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not 1 C made by the Union of India for a periodof 0 16 yearS we think this is a fitcase in which Co I solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the C0 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 this order havingregard to the fact that the Z Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended C with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest atthe rate ClO of 9 per cent per Il annum 7 Z As nouced above in this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping in 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 aIong with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possession oftheir Iands had been taken by the respondents 1e 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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 4 e8 Il FeA0 Noe 4780 of 2003 r 4 FAeOe Nos 4781 of 2003 FaAe0 Noa 4782 of 2003 FaAeOsNoe 4783 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4784 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4786 of 2003 FsAeOsNOe 4787 of 2003 and FaA0 Noe 4788 of 20030 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 appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar iee Rs600001 CO I per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possession of the Iands of the Iandownersm appellants was taken bythe respondentsiee 271966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this judgmenttn each ofthe appeal I C 4A Z 1 Aprii 2011 CMOHINDER PAL I 1 ak JUDGE 10 em2 Z tl 60 1 1 83r tl 1 . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 55 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