FAO No.1131 of 1988 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1131 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 Nanku and others ...Appellants Versus Union of India and another ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the land owners. Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for the Union of India. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing FAO Nos. 1131 of 1988 and 1213 of 1989, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator, Gurdaspur. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing the appeal the Union of India is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India in exercise of powers vide notification dated 14.06.1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 02.07.1971 issued under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of vil- lage Tahra, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for use of defence pur- pose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the pro- visions of the Act, the compensation was determined by the Arbitrator @ ` 600/- per Kanal for barani land and ` 350/- per Kanal for banjar kadim land. The land owners were also held entitled to receive solatium @ 30% and in- terest@ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subse- quent years. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas Union FAO No.1131 of 1988 2 of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium. No one has appeared for the landowners at the time of hearing. The only issue raised in the appeal filed by the Union of India is regarding award of interest and solatium to the land- owners. A perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this court in Hari Kishan Khosla Vs. Union of India and another, 1974, PLR 658 to award interest and solatium to the land owners. Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land was assessed @ ` 350/- per marla. It was also held therein that if there was any delay in appointment of the Arbitrator, the land owners are entitled to bene- fits of solatium and interest. For the reasons stated in Dilawar Singh’s case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 07.02.2011 sharmila