54 1 FJ4eOeNoe 4780 of 2003 4 FA0e Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNoa 4782 of 2003 FJOa Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAa00No 4784 of 2003 FAe0Ioe 4785 of 20030 FeAe0Noe4786 of2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C Date of Decisionl April 25 2011 0 r 0 I C5 Presentl Mr RajinderSharma Advocate for the appeliantse I Mr SanjayJoshi Advocate Z for the Union of India 2 C I Mohinder Pale J Z This judgment will disposeof FA0 No 4780 to FA0 1 CO No788 of 2003 as they anse out of the common emvo acquisition of Iand Z The Iand of the appellants situated in the revenue Il estate of Village Mahai Tehsil and District Amritsar was requisitioned under the 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 tn the Punjab Government Gazette dated 2621971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 for short the . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 1 1 F1e0n Noe 4780 of 20030 7 e FeA0 Noa 4781 of 2003 FaAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FeAO Noe 4783 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe4784 of2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FaAeOaNoe 4786 of 2003 FA0 No 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe Nom 4788 of 2003 Act of 19521 The competent authority offered compensation for the acquiredIand to the appellants at a Iower rate and the m L same was not acceptable to the appellants A request was made by 0 the appellantsfor appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair C3 I and just compensation However no action was taken by the C9 respondents on this request of the appeilants or their predecessors4rnterest The Iandowners thereafter approached Z this Court by way of fiiing Civil Writ Petition No462 of 1989 m 0 and this Court vide order dated 20121991 directed the 1 I respondents to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodof three C months from the date of the said order The respondentsfiled Z Special Leave Petition No 8396 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme QO Court of India chailengingthe order of this Court dated mWo Z 20121991 passedIil Civil Writ Petition No3462 of 1989 but ll the same was dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt vide order dated 271995 Ultimateiy 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 62002 passed in Land AcquisitionCases of the appellantsheld that the appellants 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: 56 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 IIr e3e 41 4 1 FAe0n Noe 4780 Of 2003 94 FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 FAOe Noe 4782 Of 2003 FaAn0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FAO Noe 4784 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4785 of 2003 FJOaNoa4786 Of2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FO No 4788 of 2003 fiied by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of for grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent 1 C In additionto market value of the Iand and interest 0 No crossobjectionshave been fiied by the respondents C0 I I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have C 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 2 C area I m3 Whether the Iandowners are entitled to Z enhancement of com pensation beyond Co Rse600001 per acre as determined by the m2 Z Iearned District Oudge Amritsar vide the Qm 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 ciaim of the Iandowners themselves before the Iearned District Judge 64rbitratorlwas that the Iand acquired had potentialityof . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 4 4e r FeAaOeNoe 4780 of 2003 91 0 FAeOe Non 4781 of 2003 F100 Noe 4782 of 2003 FAO Noa 4783 of 2003 FsAeOeNoa 4784 of 2003 FAeOe Noe 4785 of 2003 FAO Noe 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FeAeOeNoe 4788 of 2003 being a buildingsite situated in the suburban area of Amritsar and had potentialvalue of Rs80001 per kanal on the date of NotificatiOlle It was thus prayed by the Iandowners that 0 com pensation at Ieast to the tune of Rs80001 per kanai may Ca3 I be awarded The District Oudge after takinginto account the C5 entireevidence Ied by the parties and hearing their Iearned counsel I fixed the compensation amount payableto the iandowners at the Z rate of Rs600001e per acre ie akin to the demand made by t the Iandowners Consideringthe aforesaid fact the value of the acquiredIand as assessed by the Court below ie Rs600001 per 0 acre cannot be faulted with Question No l IS therefore Z answered in favour of the respondents Co Now coming to questionNoe2 ie whether award of 7 Z solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where 11 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 Vsm Union of India and others JT 2010 C111 SC 556 Honble SupremeCourt had answered question Noe2 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: 56 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 nl Se 4 1 FsAe0eNoa 4780 of 2003 V4P FA0 Noe 4781 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4782 of 2003 FnAOe Noe 4783 of 2003 FAeOa Noe 4784 of 2003 FAO Noa 4785 of 2003 FaAnOeNos 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FAeOe Noe 4788 of 2003 As noticed above possession of the Iand of the appellants had been taken by the respondents on 271966 m C However the Iand was acquired subsequently vide notice dated 0 14 1971 published in the PunjabGovernment Gazette dated 0 262 1971 under the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act of 1952 0 As cornpensationon the Iower side had been offered by the I r competentauthority same was not acceptableto the appellants Z Since no action was taken on the request of the Iandowners L for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine fair and just I compensation the Iandowners had to file Civil Writ Petition C No462 of 1989 in this Court wherein direction was issued to Z the respondents vide order dated 20 121991 passed by this CO Court to appoint an Arbitrator within a periodofthree months m Z from the date of the said order The respondents then went to file Ll Special Leave Petition No8396 of 1992 in the Hon ble Su preme Court of India making a challenge to the order of this Court dated 20121991 passedin Civil 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 131101995 As such after the Iandowners had been dispossessed oftheirvaluable Iand on 27 1966 it . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 r 6 b 49 r FeAeOeNoa 4780 of 2003 6 FAO Non 4781 of 2003 FAeO4004782 of 2003 FeAaOeNOe 4783 of 2003 FnA0O Noe 4784 of 2003 FaAO Noe 4785 of 2003 FAO No 4786 of 2003 FeAeOeNoe 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 6 6 2002 holdi ng 0 that the iandowners were entitled to get com pensation at the C5 I rate of Rs600001 per acree No order with regard to payment of C5 solatium and interest to the appellants on the amount of I compensationwas however passed by the Iearned District Z Judgee l In the case of Union of India Vse Hari Krishan I Khosla CDeadl bv Lrsr JT 1992 C51 SC 5742 1993 Suppl2I SCC 149 Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 79 of the Z judgment observed as underl OO 17 Il This is a case in which for 16 years Z ll no Arbitrator was appointedWe think it IS justand proper to applythe princlpleIaid down tn Harbans Sinqh Shanni Devi Vse Union of India Civil Appeal NosA70 and 471 of 1985 disposed of by this Court on February 11 19850 The Court held as under U Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 e 4 fJ FnAeOeNOe 4780 of 2003 Sr FAe0n NOe 4781 of 2003 FAO Noa 4782 of 2003 FA0 Noe 4783 of 2003 FeAONoa4784 of2003 FA0 Noe 4785 of 2003 FAs00 Non 4786 of 2003 FnAeOeNoe 4787 of 2003 and FsAeOeNon4788 of2003 case and particularly Itl view of the fact that the appointmentof Arbitrator was not m C4 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 0 amount of compensationand interest at I the rate of 9 per cent per annum should be Z awarded to the appellants We are making 2 this order havingregard to the fact that the I Iaw has in the meanwhile been amended with a view to providing soiatium at the Z rate of 30 per cent and interest atthe rate 00 of 9 per cent per Il annum 7 Z r As noticed above in this case there was delay of more than 29 years in the appointmentof an Arbitrator Keeping in Vlew the observation of the Honble SupremeCourt in the aforee mentioned cases I have no hesitation in holdingthat the appellants are entitled to solatiu m as prayed for by them aIong with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date possession oftheir Iands had been taken by the respondents1ee 271966 For the aforesaid reasons these appeals a re a Ilowed . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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 e8 4 e FnAeOaNoe 4780 of 2003 t FeAeOeNoe 4781 of 2003 2 FAO Noe 4782 of 2003 FAO No1783 of 2003 FAnOe Noe 4784 of 20030 FAeOe Non 4785 of 2003 FaAeOeNOe 4786 of 2003 FeAs0nNoe 4787 of 2003 and F1aOe No 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 j C them in these appeals on the market value of the Iand as 0 assessed by the Iearned District Judge Amritsar ie Rs600001 C40 I per acre alongwith interest atthe rate of 9 per cent per annum C5 from the date when possession of the Iands of the Iandowners appellantswas taken bythe respondentsiee 273966 Z The Registry IS directed to place a copy of this c2 judgmentin each of the appeal I r eAI 1 Z 1 4 April 2011 CMOHINDER PAL I 1 ak JUDGE 10 2 Z 41 e8 r lt g Iv . Rashmi 2012.08.30 12: 56 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