F.A.O No.334 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.334 of 1990 Date of Decision: 16.11.2009 Kaushalya Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 334, 335 and 369 of 1990 as the common question is involved in all these cases. For the sake of reference, the facts are being taken from F.A.O. No.334 of 1990. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation under the provisions of requisitioning and acquisition of Immoveable Property Act. While admitting the appeal, the prayer of the appellants was restricted only qua the statutory beneifts. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that no solatium or interest is permissible under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment rendered by this Court 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, F.A.O No.334 of 1990 2 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 judgments 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 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 F.A.O No.334 of 1990 3 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 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 F.A.O No.334 of 1990 4 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 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 in the year 1989, i.e. after a gap 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), the amount of solatium @ 15% p.a. and the interest thereupon as already granted by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, in his award dated 18-09-1989, is upheld. However, no ground for enhancement of the rate of solatium or interest is made out and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 16.11.2009 JUDGE gurpreet