RFA No. 493 of 1993 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Decided on April 21,2009. Kehar Singh (dead) through LR --Appellant vs. The State of Punjab and another -- Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.S.Kang, Advocate,for the appellants in RFA Nos.493 to 495 and 726 of 1993. Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the respondents. None for appellant in RFA No. 306 of 1993. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) Identical question of law and facts are involved in these five Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.493 to 495, 306 and 726 of 1993 filed by the claimants against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Patiala, dated 10.9.1992, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, the fact are being extracted from RFA No.493 of 1993 (Kehar Singh (dead) through LR Vs. State of Haryana and another). Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, (for short,'the Act') published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette on 9/10.3.1987, for the acquisition of 18 kanals 15 marlas of land, for the construction of Boha-Kheri distributory from RD0 to 5342 meters from village Mehtabgarh Had Bast No.131, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala. The Land Acquisition Collector, (for short, the Collector), vide his award No.257/P/SYL dated 28.1.1988, assessed the compensation of the RFA No. 493 of 1993 2 acquired land by converting it into two categories i.e. Rousli measuring 18 kanals 12 marlas @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin measuring 3 marlas @ Rs.35,000/- per acre. The landowners/claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which have been decided by the impugned award vide which the reference Court has awarded Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.75,000/- per acre for Barani/Dakkar land and Rs.55,000/- per acre for Banjar/ Gair mumkin land. It was also ordered that the claimants shall also be entitled to compensation on account of solatium for the left over land for both the severed parcels of land upto first five acre. They shall also be entitled to other benefits on the assessed amount of compensation in view of the amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act as applicable to them. Mr.P.S.Kang, learned counsel for the claimants has only argued that the claimants should also be awarded interest on the amount of solatium. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sunder Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3516 and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs.Vasantrao and others AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3499. As against this, Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned Addl. A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder (Supra) that solatium paid on account of compulsory acquisition under Section 23 (2) forms part of compensation awarded. State is liable to pay interest @ 9% on 'solatium'. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed only to RFA No. 493 of 1993 3 the extent that the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to interest on the award of solatium @ 9% per annum. April 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge