FAO No.36 of 1989 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.36 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Smt. Satya Wati ...Appellant Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the Union of India. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 917 of 1988 and 36 of 1989 as the same arise out of common acquisition. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator (ADJ), Gurdaspur. The landowner has filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas the Union of India has filed appeal against the grant of interest and solatium to the land owners. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India in exercise of powers vide notification dated April 26, 1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette date May 7, 1971 issued under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of village Anandpur, Tehsil Pathankot for use of defence purpose. The matter having been re- ferred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensa- tion was determined by the court below @ ` 225/- per Marla. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the landowner is in appeal seeking en- hancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India FAO No.36 of 1989 2 and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein the amount of compensation pay- able for the acquired land was assessed @ ` 350/- per marla. It was also held therein that if there was any delay in appointment of the Arbitrator, the land owners are entitled to benefits of solatium and interest. For the reasons stated in Dilawar Singh’s case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 24.01.2011 sharmila