54 1 46 FeA00Iloe 4780 of 2003 e FeAa0 Non 4781 of 2003 FAO Nos 4782 of 2003 FAO Noe 4783 of 2003 FnA00 Non 4784 of 2003 FAOe Noa 4785 Of 20030 FA0lo 4786 of 20030 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAO Noe 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 Date of Decision2 April 5 2011 1 0 C0 I 0 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appellants I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India a2 Q I Mohinder Pal Je C Z This judgment will dlsposeof FA0 No 4780 to FA0 m NoA788 of 2003 as they 1 arise out of the common ev acquisition of Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue tl estate of Village Maha l Tehsi l and District Amritsar was requisitioned underle provisions of Defence of India Act 1962 and the rules framed thereunder on 77 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 PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 or short the . 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 20 FeAeOeNOe 4780 of 2003 a FeAeOn Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAe0eNon 4782 of 2003 FeAe0eNoe 4783 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noa 4785 Of 2003 FAOsNoe4786 Of2003 FeAa0eNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeOe Noe 4788 of 2003 Act of 19527 The competent Jthority offered compensation forthe acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the 0 samewas not acceptableto the appellants A request was made by 0 the for appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair 0 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 No 3462 of 1989 0 and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the 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 oo Court of India challengingthe order of this Court dated 7 Z 20121991 passedin Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 but rL the same was dismissed 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 66 2002 passed in Land AcquisitionCases of the appellantsheld that the appellants Iandowners were entitled to get compensation at the rate of R600001 per acree However no solatium and interest was to 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 56 LA 8 Y 11 FeAe0mNon 4780 of 2003 a FAe0n Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNOe 4782 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4783 of 2003 FO Noe 4784 Of 2003 FAO Noe 4785 Of 2003 FeAe0sNoa 4786 of 2003 FnAe0eNoe 4787 of 2003 and FA0 No 4788 of 2003 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent e additionto market value of the Iand and interest in 0 No have been filed by the respondents 0 I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have 0 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 are Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z C enhancement of compensation beyond OQ Rs600001oer acre as determined by the W2 Z Iearned District Judge Amritsar vide the impugnedAward and i Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acqu isition of Iand has been made under the Actof 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: 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 57 0 1r 4 4 V FA0 No 4780 of 2003 FeAeO Noe 4781 of 20030 FsAe0Noe4782 of2003 FnAeOeNOe 4783 of 2003 FA0 Non 4784 of 2003 FeAnOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FnAeOaNon 4786 of 20030 FAO No 4787 of 2003 and FnAe0 NOe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the subeurban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001 per kanal on the date of 1 Notification It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that 0 compensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanal may C0 I be awarded The District Judge after takinginto account the C5 entire evidenceIed by the parties and hearingtheir Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the Iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001 per acre ie akin to the demand made by the Iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid fact the value of the I acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per C acre cannot be faulted with Question No l is therefore Z answeredin favour of the respondents 00 Now coming to questionNoe2 ie whether award of 7 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where ln 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 givenhereinafter 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 111 SC 556 Honble Supreme Court had answered question No2 as framed in this case in favour of the Iandowners by making reference to various 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 58 m5 e 1r FAO No 4780 of 2003 FnOe Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOaNoe 4782 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4783 of 20030 FeAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FeAaOaNom 4785 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4786 of 2003 FeO Noe 4787 of 2003 and F1nOe Noe 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 1 However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 1401e1971 published in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated C I 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 C49 As compensation on the Iower side had been offered by the I competentauthority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners for appointmentof an Arbitrator to determine fair and just compensation the Iandowners had to fi Ie Civil Writ Petition No 3462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 2012 1991 passed by this Qo Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three months ewo Z from the date of the said order The respondentsthen went to file ll Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme Court of India making a challenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civii Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 It was after Honble SupremeCourt dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents vide order dated 271995 that the Court of the District Judge Amritsar was appointed as an Arbitrator by the PunjabGovernment vide Notification dated 130111995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 273 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 59 11 m6m 4 FeAeOeNoa 4780 of 2003 ad FAO No 4781 of 2003 FeAa0Noe4782 of2003 FAeOe No 4783 of 2003 FeOe Noe 4784 of 2003 FAO No 4785 of 2003 F1eOa Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOsNos 4787 of 2003 and FAOe Noe 4788 of 2003 took more than twenty nine years when the Iearned District Oudgewas appointed as an Arbitrator The award was 1 by the Iearned District Judgeon 662002 holding 0 that the Iandowners were entitled to get compensationat the 0 I rate of Rs600001 per acre No order with regard to payment of C5 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of I was however passed by the Iearned District Z Judge In the case of Union of India Vs Hari Krishan I Khosla Deadl bv Lrso JT 1992 C5l SC 5742 1993 Jppl2 L3 SCC 149 Hon ble SupremeCourt in pa rag raph 79 of the Z judgment observed as under m wa Z Il This is a case in which for 16 years tl no Arbitrator was appointed We think it IS justand proper to applythe principleiaid down in Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vse Union of India tCivil Appeal Nose470 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court Oll February 111985 The Court held as under Il Having regard to the pecuiiar 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 60 r e7m e 10 FeAeOeNoe 4780 of 2003 P FeAeOeNOe 4781 of 2003 FeAaOm Noe 4782 of 2003 FeAaOeNoa 4783 of 2003 FA0 No784 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FnAaOnNoe 4786 of 2003 FeA0e Noe 4787 of 2003 and FeAO Non 4788 of 2003 case and particu Iarly in view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not 1 made by the Union of India for a periodof 0 16 yearS we think this is a fit case in which 0 I solatium 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 a ppellants We are making 0 this order havingregard to the fact that the I Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended t3 with a view to providing solatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate m of 9 per cent per 11 annun 7 Z As noticed above in this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping in View the observation of the Honble SupremeCourt in the afor 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 of their Iands had been taken by the respondentsie 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these a ppeals 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 61 4 e FA0n Non 4780 of 2003 0 FmAaOa Noe 4781 of 2003 FaAeOeNo782 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4783 of 2003 FaAeOeNoe 4784 of 2003 FA0 Noa 4785 of 2003 FeAeOeNoa 4786 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FJO Noe 4788 of 2003 to the extent that the are held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as prayedfor by them in these appeals on the market value of the iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001 0 per acre aiongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possessionof the Iands of the Iandowners I appellantswas taken bythe respondents1e 271966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this 2 judgmentIll each of the appeal I Il r 4A 1 L Z April 2011 c MOHINDER PAL I 1 ak JUDGE QO a7 Z ll V2 1 IA . 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