FAO No.1373 of 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1373 of 1989. Decided on: January 28, 2011. Union of India. .. Appellant VERSUS Mukhtiar Singh. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Ms.Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The Union of India-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 11of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Vide impugned award, the arbitrator i.e., the . . . 1 FAO No.1373 of 1989 Additional District Judge, Bathinda, has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, the competent Authority as follows: - 1 For the land situated on either side of the road upto a depth of 500 metres from the municipal limits/fencing of the cantonment boardering the land acquired and abutting on III Phase of Urban Estate of Bathinda Town. Rs.16.80 per square yard 2 For the other land upto a depth of 500 meters from the municipal limits/fencing of the cantonment boardering the land acquired and abutting on the III Phase of Urban Estate of Bathinda town. Rs.16/- per square yard 3 For the rest of the acquired land Rs.8.50 per square yard 4 15 per cent solatium on the compensation amount a computed under each of the above said categories. 5 6 per cent interest on the total sum of compensation and solatium with efffect the date of acquisition i.e., 20.01.1975. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 1230.80 acres of land situated within the revenue limits of Bathinda was requisitioned for defence purposes for the establishment of cantonment under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, on 07.10.1972, under the orders of District Magistrate, Bathiinda. The land was later on acquired on 20.11.1975 under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar had vide assessment report dated . . . 2 FAO No.1373 of 1989 06.03.1975, allowed compensation at following rates: - 1 Area Assessed on Flat Rs.16,000/- per acre 2 Nehri/Chahi Rs.14,000/- per acre 3 Chahi Muster Rs.10,000/- per acre 4 Barani Rs.9,000/- per acre 5 Gair Mumkin/Banjar Rs.4,500/- per acre The claimants not satisfied with the above said assessment sought a reference claiming that the market value of the land was much higher than the amount awarded. The Additional District Judge, who was appointed as Arbitrator under Section 8(1) (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, framed the following issues: - 1. What was the market value of the land acquisitioned at the time of acquisition of land?OPA 2. Who are the persons entitled for payment of compensation?OPA 3. Relief. While deciding issue Nos.1 & 2, the Arbitrator believed the statement of Hans Raj AW.1 and relied upon the award passed by Sh.Bhagwan Singh, the Special Land Acquisition Collector EX.A1 and upheld the compensation awarded by Sh.Bhagwan Singh. The judgment of High Court EX.A2 was taken into consideration for granting the compensation as mentioned hereinabove. . . . 3 FAO No.1373 of 1989 Ms.Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, learned Advocate, for the Union of India-appellant, has vehemently contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitrator is on higher side and that on the basis of mutations EX.R1 to EX.R12, quoting the instances of sale of land mentioned therein, the lesser compensation should have been awarded. Reliance has also been placed on statement of RW.1 Paramjit Singh Patwari, who has stated that the land is situated at a distance of more than 2 kilometers from Bathinda City. Tek Chand RW.2 has stated that no commercial area of building is present adjoining the land in dispute and that the Railway Station is about 7 kilometers away from this land. Besides this, the learned counsel has argued that the Arbitrator has granted excessive solatium which deserves to be reduced. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the entire evidence and the statements of the witnesses and also the documents placed on record. It will be pertinent to observe that vide EX.A2 and EX.A3, in FAO No.423 of 1984, decided on 16.10.1984, the market value of the land adjacent to the land on the same national highway leading from Bathinda to Barnala, awarded compensation of Rs.16.80 per square yard for the land situated on the either side of national highway upto depth of 500 meters and for the land upto depth of 500 metres from the municipal limits/fencing of the . . . 4 FAO No.1373 of 1989 Cantonment boardering the land acquired and abutting on the III phase of Urban Estate of Bhatinda town, it was assessed as Rs.16 per square yard and for the rest of the acquired land, Rs.8.50 per square yard was awarded. It was clarified that the claimants, falling in 1st and 2nd categories, the land would be treated a first category and claimants would be paid compensation @ Rs.16.80 per square yard and not Rs.16 per square yard. AW.1 Hans Raj, claimant had stated that the land of Mukhtiar Singh and Ganga Singh was also acquired along with his own land and that at the time the land was acquired, the market value was Rs.70/- per square yard. Hans Raj was not cross-examined regarding the similarity of the land of respondent and that of Mukhtiar Singh who had been awarded enhanced compensation. On the basis of above said position, I am of the opinion that EX.A2, can be taken as a precedent for the grant of enhanced compensation. No fault can be found in the award passed by the Arbitrator which is hereby affirmed. Next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Arbitrator has acted illegally in allowing 15 per cent solatium and interest @ 6 per cent per annum, on the total sum of compensation and solatium w.e.f., the date of acquisition. She argued that no solatium or interest is permissible under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. A perusal of EX.A3, indictes that Gagan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh had to file a writ petition i.e., CWP No.3249 of 1982 . . . 5 FAO No.1373 of 1989 for a direction to appoint arbitrator and refer the case to the Arbitrator for determination of compensation as required under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Vide judgment dated 30.04.1987, a direction was given to the Collector to dispose of the reference application expeditiously. It is apparent that there had been delay in appointment of Arbitrator. Whether solatium and interest can be granted under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952? It has been held in Dilawar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., JT 2010 (11) SC 556, that solatium and interest could be awarded to the expropriated land owners under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, besides the award of interest in favour of land owners. In view of the ratio of the judgment in case Dilawar Singh & Ors. (supra), it is held that award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of land is made under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 28, 2011. rka . . . 6