UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus DR. ASKET SINGH & ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 227, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 227 : 2024 INSC 409
Union of India & Anr. 
v. 
Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2016)
01 May 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge to the relief of solatium and interest 
on the compensation amount granted by the High Court.
Headnotes
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 
1952 – s. 8(1)(a) – Compensation – Delay in payment of – 
Grant of solatium and interest by the High Court – Challenge 
to:
Held: Right to hold immovable property is no longer a fundamental 
right but is a right u/Art. 300A – On facts, land owned by the first 
respondent stood vested in the Central Government in the year 
1964 – Offer for payment of compensation was made by the 
Collector belatedly after 12 years in 1976 – Delay of more than 
12 years attributable solely to the Central Government – Since 
the respondents declined to accept the offer, the Arbitrator was 
appointed in 1976, it took slightly less than 20 years to conclude 
the proceedings – Nothing on record that the proceedings were 
delayed due to any conduct attributable to the first respondent – 
Delay in appointing the arbitrator must be attributed to the Central 
Government, as the Central Government took 12 years to offer 
compensation – In effect, market value prevailing on the date of 
acquisition was paid to the owners after lapse of more than 30 
years from the date of vesting – As there are no provisions
under 
the 1952 Act to compensate the owner for the delay in making 
payment of compensation, in such cases, solatium and interest 
must be paid by the Central Government – Compensation must 
be paid to the owner of the acquired property within a reasonable 
time from the date on which the acquired property vested in the 
acquiring body – Requirement of making payment of compensation 
within a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read
228
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
into the 1952 Act – Long delay of 12 years even in offering 
compensation would attract arbitrariness which is prohibited 
by Art. 14 – Considering the huge delay involved in payment 
of compensation, the High Court rightly granted solatium and 
interest – As the first respondent has been paid compensation 
7 years back, no costs imposed – Constitution of India – Arts. 
14, 300A. [Paras 7-10]
Case Law Cited
Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India; Union 
of India v. Chajju Ram [2003] 3 SCR 647 : (2003) 5 
SCC 568; Dilawar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 
[2010] 12 SCR 1059 : (2010) 14 SCC 357; Union of 
India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1992] Supp. 1 SCR 620 : 
1993 Supp. 2 SCC 149 – referred to.
List of Acts
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
List of Keywords
Compensation; Delay in payment of compensation; Grant of 
solatium; Grant of interest; Right to hold immovable property; 
Fundamental right; Delay; Date of acquisition; Arbitrariness; 
Costs.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 
of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2015 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 2307 and 2673 
of 1998
Appearances for Parties
Mukul Singh, Indira Bhakar, Sharath Nambiar, Shubham Saxena, 
Vineet Singh, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, T. S. Sabarish, Udai 
Khanna, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for 
the Appellants.
Ms.
Rajshree Bhatnagar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
229
Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.	
The facts of the case are glaring. The respondents are the owners 
of the lands subject matter of these appeals. At the instance of the 
Ministry of Defence, acquisition proceedings were initiated under 
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 
(for short “the 1952 Act”). A notice of acquisition under Section 7 of 
the 1952 Act was issued on 26th March, 1964 which was published 
in the State Government Gazette on 3rd April, 1964. The vesting of 
the acquired property was complete on publication of the notice in 
the official gazette.
3.	
The provisions for grant of compensation in respect of the acquired 
land are found in Section 8 of the 1952 Act. The first option provided 
therein is to fix the compensation by an agreement between the 
acquiring body and the owners. if there is no such agreement, under 
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, the Central Government 
is required to appoint an arbitrator for determining the amount of 
compensation payable. An offer for payment of compensation was 
made by the appellants belatedly after 12 years on 16th August, 1976. 
The respondents declined to accept the said offer. Therefore, the 
Land Acquisition Officer addressed a letter to the Government on 
8th October, 1976 to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly,
the Additional 
District Judge, Gurdaspur was appointed as the Arbitrator. Nearly 
22 years thereafter on 8th May, 1998, the award was declared by 
the Arbitrator by which he came to the conclusion that the market 
value of the acquired land was Rs.150/- per Marla. 
4.	
An appeal was preferred by the first respondent as well as by 
the present appellants for challenging the award of the Arbitrator. 
By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the market 
value ought to be Rs.350/- per Marla which was determined in 
the cases of similarly situated acquired lands. As there was a 
gross and inordinate delay in completing the arbitral proceedings 
for determination of the market value, relying upon the decisions 
of this Court in the cases of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union
230
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of India1 and Union of India v. Chajju Ram2 which were followed 
by this Court in a decision in the case of Dilawar Singh & Ors. 
v. Union of India & Ors.3, the High Court granted solatium at the 
rate of 30% of the market value and interest on the compensation 
amount at 9% and 15%.
5.	
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 
is that the relief of solatium and interest has been granted in earlier 
cases by this Court where there was a delay on the part of the 
Central Government in appointing an Arbitrator for determination of 
compensation. In this case, the delay is mainly in disposal of the 
arbitral proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the High Court 
ought not to have awarded both solatium and interest. The learned 
counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that in terms 
of the impugned judgment, the first respondent has received the 
entire compensation amount about 7 years back.
6.	
It will be useful to refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of 
this Court in the case of Dilawar Singh3 which reads thus:
“9. It is common ground that the provisions of the 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 
1952 do not make any provision for the grant of solatium 
or interest to the expropriated landowners. The absence 
of any such provision in the said act was in fact made a 
basis for a challenge to the constitutional validity of the 
enactment which was
repelled by this Court in Union of 
India v. Hari Krishan Khosla4. This Court pointed out that 
any comparison between acquisition made under the 
Requisitioning and acquisition Act would be odious in view 
of the dissimilarities between the two enactments. That 
decision was followed in subsequent pronouncements of 
this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram2 where a similar 
attack was mounted against the constitutional validity of 
the Defence of India Act, 1971 but repelled by this Court 
relying upon the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla4.
1	
decided on 11th February, 1985 in Civil Appeal No.470-471 of 1985
2	
[2003] 3 SCR 647 : (2003) 5 SCC 568
3	
[2010] 12 SCR 1059 : (2010) 14 SCC 357
4	
[1992] Supp. 1 SCR 620 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
231
Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.
10. What is noteworthy is that in both these matters this 
Court had made a distinction between cases in which 
there was inordinate delay in the appointment of an 
arbitrator and consequent delay in the determination of 
the amount of compensation payable to the owners and 
other case where there was no such delay. In para 79 of 
the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla4, this 
Court observed:
“79. This is a case in which for 16 years 
no arbitrator was appointed. We think it is 
just and proper to apply the principle laid 
down in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. 
Union of India1. The Court held as under:
Having regard to the peculiar 
facts and circumstances of the 
present case and particularly in 
view of the fact that the 
appointment of the arbitrator 
was not made by the Union of 
India for a period of 16 years, 
we think this is a fit case in which 
solatium at the rate of 30% of 
the amount of compensation 
and interest at the rate of 9% 
per annum should be awarded 
to the appellants. We are making 
this order having regard to the 
fact that the law has in the 
meanwhile been amended with 
a view to providing solatium at 
the rate of 30% and interest at 
the rate of 9% per annum.”
7.	
As noted in the said decision, there is no provision for grant of 
solatium and interest under the 1952 Act.
8.	
It is true that the right to hold immovable property is no longer a 
fundamental right but it is
a right under Article 300A of the Constitution 
of India. Considering the peculiar provisions of the 1952 Act, the
232
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
land owned by the first respondent stood vested in the Central 
Government on 3rd April, 1964. Therefore, the compensation ought 
to have been paid to the first respondent within a reasonable time 
from 3rd April, 1964. Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 
8, there is a provision to decide the amount of compensation by an 
agreement. Such agreement could have been arrived at, provided 
the Central Government had submitted their proposal or offer to the 
first respondent. However, the offer was actually made by the Collector 
in August, 1976. Thus, there was no attempt made by the Central 
Government to bring about the consensus on the market value for 
a period of more than 12 years. Inordinate time of 12 years was 
taken by the Government to offer compensation to the first respondent. 
We must record here that this delay of more than 12 years is 
attributable solely to the Central Government. After the Arbitrator 
was appointed on 8th October, 1976, it took slightly less than 20 years 
to conclude the proceedings. There is nothing placed on record to 
show that the proceedings were delayed due to any conduct 
attributable to the first respondent. The delay in appointing the 
arbitrator must be attributed to the Central Government, as the 
Central Government took 12 years to offer compensation. In effect, 
market value prevailing on the date of acquisition was paid to the 
owners after lapse of more than 30 years
from the date of vesting.
9.	
After having perused the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we find 
that as there are no provisions under the 1952 Act to compensate 
the owner for the delay in making payment of compensation, a 
direction was issued by this Court that in such cases, solatium and 
interest must be paid by the Central Government. The main reason 
for taking the said view is that the compensation must be paid to 
the owner of the acquired property within a reasonable time from 
the date on which the acquired property vested in the acquiring 
body. The requirement of making payment of compensation within 
a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read into the 
1952 Act. In fact, such a long delay of 12 years even in offering 
compensation will attract arbitrariness which is prohibited by Article 
14 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent had an option 
of even seeking quashing of the acquisition on the ground of this 
arbitrariness which may have violated his rights under Article 300A 
of the Constitution of India.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
233
Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.
10.	 Considering the huge delay involved in payment of compensation, 
the High Court has rightly granted solatium and interest in terms of 
the decisions of this Court. In fact, we are surprised to note that the 
appellants have dragged the first respondent to this Court. There 
is absolutely no merit in these appeals. As the first respondent 
has been paid compensation 7 years back, we are refraining from 
imposing costs.
11.	 Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: 
Appeals dismissed.