53 1 b 1 1V FAO Noa 4780 of 2003 FAOa Noe 4781 of 2003 4 FaAe00No1782 of 2003 FAO No 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNoa4784 of2003 FA0 Non 4785 of 2003 FA0n Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FO Noe 4788 of 20030 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARI C2 Date of Decision April 476 2011 et 1 1 0 0 C5 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellants I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India f I Mohinder Pal 0e C Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 Noe 4780 to FA0 C No788 of 2003 as they 4 arise out of the common 7 acquisitionof Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue estate of Village MahaI Tehsil and District Am ritsar was requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 7 1966 and possession of the Iand was taken by the respondents on 271966 Subsequently the Iand was acquired vide notice dated 14 1 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 l f . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 2 1 r 31 t FaAaO Noe 4780 of 20030 FAOe Non 4781 of 2003 r FA0 No 4782 of 2003 FmA0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FJ4O Noa 4784 of 2003 FeAmOsNOe 4785 of 2003 FeA0e Noe 4786 of 2003 FaAeOsNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeA0e Noe 4788 of 2003 Act of 19527 The competent authority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the same was not acceptableto the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair C I and just compensation However no action was ta ken by the C9 respondents on this request of the appellants or their I predecessorsnnterest The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 L and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three 3 months from the date of the said order The respondentsfiled Z SpecialLeave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honbie Supreme rlo Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated W2 Z 201201991 passedIrl Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 but ll the same was dismissed by the Honbie 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 appeliantsheld that the appelIants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs600001 per acre However no solatium and interest was grantedto the appellants Accordingly these appeals have been . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 55 rv e 1 t4 4f FA0 Noa 4780 of 2003 FAe0n Noa 4781 of 2003 n FeAn0eNOe 4782 of 2003 F1O Noe 4783 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4784 of 2003 FAaOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FeAe00Noe 4786 of 2003 FO 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noe 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the a mou nt of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent 1 in addition to market value of the Iand and intereste 0 No crossobjectionshave been filed by the respondents C I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have C5 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 appeals which e C are I 0 iI Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of cornpensation beyond oo Rs600001 per acre as determined by the W0 Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the 0 impugnedAward and iil Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of Iand has been made under theActof 1952 So far as the Orst question IS concerned the claim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge ArbitratoO was that the Iand acquired had potentialityof . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 0 4 mr V FeAaOeNoe 4780 of 2003 FAO Non 4781 of 2003 r3 FAO No 4782 of 2003 FAO No 4783 of 2003 FeAeO Noe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FAO Non 4786 of 2003 FnAeO Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the sulirban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001oer kanal on the date of 1 L Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that O compensation at ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may C I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the C5 entire evidence Ied by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001oer acre ie akin to the demand made by Ct the Iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid factthe value of the I acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per 3 acre cannot be faulted with Question No l IS therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents CO Now coming to question Noe2 iee whether award of n7 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where Cl acquisition of land has been made under the Act of 1952 the same deserves to be answered in favour of the appellants for the reasons to be given hereinafter At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the case of Dilawar Sinqh and others Vsn Union of India and others JT 2010 111 SC 556 Honble Supreme Court 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: 54 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 57 8e r 1 FnAe00Non4780 of2003 FeAeO Noe 4781 of 2003 e9 FA0 Noe 4782 of 2003 FaAn0 No1783 of 2003 FaAeOaNoe 4784 of 2003 FsAeOeNo1785 of 2003 FeOn Noe 4786 of 2003 FlaOe Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAsOeNoe 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 l 1971 published in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 I 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 C5 As compensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I cornpetentauthority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners rL for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to fiie Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 2012 1991 passed by this 00 Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months 7 Z from the date of the said order The respondentsthen went to file Qm Speclal Leave Petition No 8396 of 1992 in 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 PunjabGovernment vide N0U8cation dated 13111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed of their valuable Iand On 277 1966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 r 40 t r 1 FeAOe Noe 4780 of 2003 0 FeA00 Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOnNo 4782 of 2003 FeAn0mNoe 4783 of 2003 FAeOeNoe4784 of2003 FAO No 4785 of 2003 FJ0Noe4786 Of20030 FeAe0nNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noe 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator The award was 1 r by the iearned District Judgeon 662002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensationat the 0 I rate of Rs6000011er acre No order with regard to payment of C5 solatium and interest to the appeilants on the amount of compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judge C In the case of Union of India Vse Hari Krishan I Khosla Deadl bv Lrs JT 1992 Sl SC 5742 1993 Supple2l SCC 149 Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 79 of the Z judgmentobserved as under CO vmo 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 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 under Il Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 7m S 1 FnAOe Noe 4780 of 2003 FAOa Nos 4781 of 2003 e FAOa Noe 4782 of 2003 F1O No 4783 of 2003 FsAn0 Noe 4784 of 2003 FeAeOeNon 4785 of 2003 FeAe0loe 4786 of 2003 FAe0Iloe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNo 4788 of 2003 case and particularly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not 1 L made by the Union of India for a periodof 0 16 yearS we think this is a fit case in which 40 I solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the 0 amount of compensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the a ppellants We are making r this order havingregard to the fact that the I Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate ClO of 9 per cent per annum Il vm Z As noticed above Ill this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping in View the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in the afore mentioned cases I have no hesitation in holdingthat the appellants are entitled to solatium as prayed for by them along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possession oftheir Iands had been taken by the respondentsie 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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 a FA0 Noe 4780 of 2003 7 IS FaAeOaNOs4781 of 2003 FnAOa No 4782 of 2003 FA0 No 4783 of 2003 FeAeOeNon 4784 of 2003 FsAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FAOe Noa 4786 of 2003 FeAe0eNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAaOeN 4788 of 2003 to the extent that the appellantsIandownersare held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by 1 Q them in these appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Am ritsar ie Rs600001 U I per acre alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandowners I appellantswas taken by the respondentsIee 2771966 Z The RegistryIS directed to place a copy of this judgmentin each of the appeal I Sl Z 2S 4W April 2011 MOHINDER PAL I 1 ak OUDGE 00 em Z C1w 548 2r W re . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 54 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