1 55 1 1 4 1 FAO Non 4780 of 2003 r FeAO No 4781 of 2003 FAeOs Non 4782 of 2003 FeAaOeNoe 4783 of 2003 FnAsOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FAOm Noe 4785 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOaNos 4787 of 2003 and FAeOa Noe 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH m C Date of Decisionl April 5 2011 1 0 0 I C5 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appelIantse I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India 1Z I Mohinder Pal Je Z This judgment will disposeof FO No 4780 to F0e m NoA788 of 2003 as they artse out of the common 7 acquisition of Iand Z The Iand of the a ppellants situated in the revenue estate of Village Mahal Tehsii and District Amritsar was requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 77 1966 a nd possession of the Iand was taken by the respondents on 271966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 1401 1971 published in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 26 2 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 for short the r . 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 1 1 56 4 47 e2 8 4ad FeO Noa 4780 of 2003 e FAO Noe 4781 of 2003 FAeOeNoa4782 of2003 FeAeOnNoe 4783 of 2003 FAO Noe 4784 Of 2003 FaAe0nNon 4785 of 2003 FJ4eO1 4786 of 20030 FAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 Act of 19527 The competent authority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the 1m 0 same was not acceptableto the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair C40 and just compensation However no action was taken by the C5 respondents on this request of the appellants or their I predecessorsinterest The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition Noe3462 of 1989 r and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months from the date of the said order The respondents filed Z SpecialLeave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme flO Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated mmo Z 201201991 passedItl Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 but the same was dismlssed 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 13111995 The District Judge vide common Award dated 662002 passed in Land Acquisition Cases of the appellantsheid that the appellants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs600001 per acr However no solatium and interest was granted to the appellants Accordingly these appeals have been e . 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 41 e 7 6 FaAe0Ilom 4780 of 2003 FA No1781 of 2003 a FAO No 4782 of 2003 FAO No 4783 of 2003 FAeOe NOe 4784 of 2003 FAO No 4785 of 2003 FnAeOeNOe 4786 of 2003 FAO No 4787 of 2003 and FAO No 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the a mount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent 1 C additionto market value of the Iand and interest tn 0 No crossobjectionshave been filed by the respondents 0 I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have C9 gonethrough the records of the case I In view of the facts mentioned above two questions Z arise for determination by this Court in these appeaIs wh ich 2 Q are I r Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of compensation beyond Cll Rs600001 per acre as determined by the awm Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the 0m impugnedAward 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 Arbitrato 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 58 4 4e FAOe Noe 4780 Of 2003 1 FAeOe Noa 4781 of 20030 FnAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FeAaOeNoa 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNOe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FAe0Iloe 4786 of 2003 FsAeOeNoa 4787 of 2003 and FaAeOaNoe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the sulIrban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs8000 per kanal on the date of Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that 0 compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may 0 I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the 0 entireevidence Ied by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs60000 per acre ie akin to the demand made by C2 the Iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid factthe value of the I acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below i e Rs600001e per C acre cannot be faulted with Question Nol is therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents rlO Now coming to question No2 ie whether award of Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where Qe 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 C11 SC 556 Honble SupremeCourt had answered question No2 as framed in this case in favour of the Iandowners by makingreference to vanous 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 59 Il e X 9e FeAs0 Noe 4780 of 2003 S FAO Noa 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FAOa Noe 4783 of 2003 FAO N 4784 of 2003 FA00 Noe 4785 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4786 Of 2003 FAOe Noa 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeN 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 14 1971 published Ill the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 I 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 C5 As compensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I competent authority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the req uest of the Iandowners 2 for appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civil Writ Petition L2 No3462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20121991 passed by this CO Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months 7 Z from the date of the said order The respondents then went to Ole Qu Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 Ill the Honble Supreme Court of India making a challenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 It was after Honble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents vide order dated 272 1995 that the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 13111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 271966 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 60 1 441 FaAeOeNOe 4780 of 2003 1 R FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FJOe Noa 4782 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 F1O No 4784 of 2003 FAO No 4785 of 2003 FeAe0eNoe 4786 of 2003 FaAnOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAOa NOe 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was 1 CC pronounced by the Iearned District Judge on 662002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the C I rate of Rs600001oer acre No order with regard to payment of 0 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of com pensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z 3udge C In the case of Union of India Vse Hari Krishan I Khosla lDeadl bv Lrsr JT 1992 S SC 5742 1993 Suppl2 L2 SCC 149 Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 79 of the Z judgmentobserved as undec C 7 Z ll This is a case in which for 16 years ll no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS just and proper to applythe principleIaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vs Union of India Civil Appeal NosA70 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 11 1985 The Court held as underl Il Having regard to the pecuiiar 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 61 te e7 4 41 FA0 No 4780 of 2003 7 FAa00 Non 4781 of 2003 FaAa0 Nos 4782 of 2003 I e FAeOIloa 4783 of 2003 FeAn0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noa 4785 of 2003 FeAsOeNos 4786 of 2003 FAe0n Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNon 4788 of 2003 case and particulariy in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not i 0 made by the Union of India for a periodof 0 16 yearS we think this is a fit case in which 0 I soiatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the C5 amount of compensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appelIants We are rnaking r this order havingregard to the fact that the Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended C1 with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 percent and interest atthe rate CO of 9 per cent per annum Il n7 Z tl As noticed above Itl this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping Itl View the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in the afore mentioned cases I have no hesitation in holdingthat the appeilants are entitled to solatium as prayed for by them along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possessionof their Iands had been taken by the respondents ie 2719660 f 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 62 8 5D 14 4 FeAeOaNoe 4780 of 2003 41 FeAeOaNOe 4781 of 2003 1 1 FnA0e Noe 4782 of 2003 FaAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 AeO No 4784 of 2003 FeOa Noe 4785 of 20030 FAeOe Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAOe Noe 4787 of 2003 and FA0No4788 of2003 to the extent that the appeliantsIandownersare held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by m C2 them in these appeals on the market value of the iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001e 0 I per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandowners appellantswas taken by the respondentsi e 271966 Z The RegistryIS directed to place a copy of this 2 judgmentIll each of the appeal I P 1 Z L April 2011 MOHINDER PAL I 1 ak JUDGE rlo 7 Z C1 C03 1 IA S . 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