Sanicharwa Lakra v. Union Of India — 1998 DIGILAW 223 (PAT)

Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. All these there appeals are taken up together as the parties are almost same and the matter involved and the question of law are the same and similar. 2. M.A. No. 38 of 1994 (R) has arisen under Sec. 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 against the award passed in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1993, while M.A. No. 39 of 1994 (R) has arisen under the same provision of the Act against the award passed in Arbitration Case No. 6 of 1993. Both these appeals have been filed by the claimants/awardees in the above mentioned Arbitration cases. 3. M.A. No. 132 of 1994 (R) has been filed under the same provision of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority of Ranchi District against the same award passed in Arbitration Case No. 6 of 1993. It should be mentioned here that the same appellant i.e., the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority had also filed another Misc. Appeal against the award passed in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1993 but the said Misc. appeal has already been dismissed for default and the same has never been revived. 4. The lands pertaining to both the cases were requisitioned in the year 1942 under the provisions of Defence of India Act by the Union of India and subsequently the same lands were also acquisitioned under Sec. 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called as the Act), for the purpose of construction of Khoja Toll Army Camp at Ranchi. Out of the lands acquired of the awardees 0.75 acres of plot No. 241 Khata No. 81 lie in village Kutiyatu bearing Thana No; 330 original Thana and District Ranchi and remaining land measuring 10.91 acres of Khata Nos. 86, 74, 100 situated in village Tumbagutu bearing Thana No. 301 of original Thana within the district of Ranchi. As per the provision of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority had acquired the land and compensation were assessed and fixed by the competent authority but the compensation fixed were found to be inadequate by the awardees i.e., appellants in M.A. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1994 (R) and filed objection to the award and compensation fixed by him. 38 and 39 of 1994 (R) and filed objection to the award and compensation fixed by him. As per Sec. 3 of the Act, the amount of compensation as far as possible can be fixed by agreement and payments shall also be made in accordance with agreement but if no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall have to appoint an Arbitrator, who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment, as a Judge of a High Court. When objections were raised by the awardees-appellants, no attempt was made by the Union of India for fixation of compensation or appointment of an Arbitrator as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Act as mentioned above. Then the appellants had to move this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1543 of 1992 (R) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court and this Court was pleased to direct the Central Government or its delegatee to appoint an Arbitrator under Sec. 8(1)(b) of the Act and as per the direction of this Court, a retired Judge of this Court, namely, Justice Rama Chandra Prasad Singh (Retired) was appointed as an Arbitrator through the notification dated 18.12.92 and time to time the period for filing the award had been extended by fresh notifications till 1993. On notice being issued by the Arbitrator, the awardees and the Competent Authority as per the Act appeared before the Arbitrator and the awardees filed statement of their claims in both the cases. It must be mentioned here that two cases were registered as the acquisition was in respect of two villages as mentioned above contiguous to each other. 5. Arbitration Case No. 6 of 1993 arose out of L.A. case No. 6 or 1986-87 while Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1993 arose cut of L.A. Case No. 7 of 1986-87. 6. In Arbitration Case No. 6 of 1993. the awardees had the grievance that 75 decimals of land were acquired in the year 1986-87 for a nominal compensation of Rs. 9,506.25 and that the proper and just compensation should have been Rs. Seven lacs. They had also demanded solatium at the rate of 30% per annum and they had also claimed interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act or any other provisions of Law which was in vogue at the relevant time, and also prayed for cost. 9,506.25 and that the proper and just compensation should have been Rs. Seven lacs. They had also demanded solatium at the rate of 30% per annum and they had also claimed interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act or any other provisions of Law which was in vogue at the relevant time, and also prayed for cost. According to the clairnants-awardees, the lands were very fertile and they produced sweet potato, goda, madua, sugarcane including mustard and vegetables. According to them, Block Development Officer, Police Station are adjacent to the Land acquired. National Highway passes just adjacent to Kutiyatu village and Ranchi-Tatanagar road and Namkum-Tipudana road are at a distance of about 1/2 Kilometer from the acquired land and, as such, the valuation of the lands is very high. It is also stated that the acquired lands is situated only at a distance of 10-12 kilometers from the heart of the Ranchi town. Namkum railway station is hardly at a distance of 2 kms from the village. The forest and telegraph offices are at a distance of 11/2 kms. The Bishop Westcot Boys and Girls Schools are also situated nearby. In the statement of claims made by the awardees they have mentioned the rate of lands to be fixed for different categories. For the purpose of sale rate also, they have enclosed the sale deed alongwith their statements and price list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of nearly lands had also been attached with the statement and a letter regarding the rates had also been attached. 7. On the other hand, it was asserted on behalf of the Union of India that the Government of India Defence Department acquisitioned a big area of land and compensation for the acquisitioned land had been determined by the Competent Authority in proper and just way. There was no scope of increase in the rate as fixed by the Competent Authority. They have denied the assertion of the land being fertile. According to the Union of India, the lands acquisitioned were barren lands as there was no scope of irrigation and that the Nationally Highway is at a far distance. The Military Hospital is not available to the civilians which was situated in the nearby area and by that way, the valuation of the lands had never been increased. 8. According to the Union of India, the lands acquisitioned were barren lands as there was no scope of irrigation and that the Nationally Highway is at a far distance. The Military Hospital is not available to the civilians which was situated in the nearby area and by that way, the valuation of the lands had never been increased. 8. Similar is the objection filed in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1993 and the claims of the awardees were same and similar in nature. 9. Learned Arbitrator after considering all the materials supplied by both the parties and also on the basis of the oral evidence adduced came to the finding that the flat rate of Rs. 2,000.00 per decimal should be proper and just regarding the acquired lands also granted 15% solatium on the above with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st April, 1987 to 31st December, 1993 i.e., for 6 years 9 months of the amount of compensation with cost of Rs. 4,000.00 . 10. In the appeals field by the awardees, contention is that the learned Arbitrator has not considered the documents filed alongwith the claim petition. During the course of argument, Mr. Mehta, appearing for and on behalf of the appellants conceded that those documents had not been proved legally before the Arbitrator. In that view of the matter, those documents were rightly left out for consideration by the learned Arbitrator. But after going through the whole of the reasoned Award, I find that the learned Arbitrator had not totally left out those documents for consideration but had taken into consideration of those documents but did not rely on them as those had not been proved legally before him and the documents which had been proved before the Arbitrator has been considered with open judicial mind by the learned retired Judge and gave reasonings as to how he had reached to his conclusion regarding increased rate of the acquired land per decimal. 11. I do not find much force in the submission of Mr. Mehta that the reasonings given by the learned Arbitrator has got any lacuna rather he had considered all aspects, pros and cons of the matter by detailed discussion and then arrived at his finding. There is nothing to be interfered with the same. 12. 11. I do not find much force in the submission of Mr. Mehta that the reasonings given by the learned Arbitrator has got any lacuna rather he had considered all aspects, pros and cons of the matter by detailed discussion and then arrived at his finding. There is nothing to be interfered with the same. 12. The main objection is with regard to the solatium and interest as granted by the learned Arbitrator. Although no cross objections have been filed in these two Misc. appeals i.e., M.A. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1994 (R) for and on behalf of the Union of India, but objections have been raised regarding grant of solatium and interest by the learned Arbitrator in the given Award. When an issue has been decided by the Arbitrator although no cross-objection has been field but the same can be taken up for consideration also when it appears that the another appeal has also preferred by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority. How far that appeal is competent and maintainable is the matter to be considered later on but the fact remains that the main crux of dispute in these two appears is with regard to grant of solatium and interest as granted by the learned Arbitrator. It may further be mentioned here that Mr. Trivedi, S.C.C.G., appearing for and on behalf of the Union of India has submitted that Union of India has preferred two appeals against the Award in question before the Patna Bench of this High Court. Mr. Mehta submitted that those appeals had already been dismissed for default but Mr. Trivedi submits that those appeals had been revived on petitions being filed for restoration. Be it what it may, it is not known how appeals have been preferred before the Patna Bench as the jurisdiction as per the Patna High Court Rules exclusive lies with the Ranch! Bench of the Patna High Court. In that view of the matter, I did not allow the matters to be dragged further in consideration of appeals being preferred by the Union of India at Patna Bench. 13. Mr. Bench of the Patna High Court. In that view of the matter, I did not allow the matters to be dragged further in consideration of appeals being preferred by the Union of India at Patna Bench. 13. Mr. Trivedi, appearing for and on behalf of the Union of India has screnuously argued that under the Act, there is no provision of solatium and interest and this has been decided by the Apex Court that there is no scope of grant of solatium and interest under the Act and, as such, such grant of solatium and interest is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. It is true that under the Act, there Is no provision of solatium interest as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Act. This was the matter of controversy for long as under the Land Acquisition Act, there is specific provision for solatium and interest then when the Act of 1952 came inforce then the same analogy of Land Acquisition Act must be applied as the form of acquisition is compulsory acquisition. The vires of the Act was challenged before the Apex Court in Hari Krishan Khoslas case 1993 Supp (2) S.C.C. 149. The constitutionality of the provision of Section 8(3)(a) was challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14. In relation to Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to solatium and interest. The Apex court held that there is distinction between the nature of acquisition and compensation under the 1952 Act and the Land Acquisition Act as under this Act there was previous requisition and rates had been paid to the awardees while taking possession during the course of requisition. So, the question of taking advance possession and assessment of compensation afterwards for which solatium and interest being provided under the Land Acquisition Act can not be made applicable in the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Here the Arbitrator is to fix the just compensation in the circumstances of each case with regard to Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act, but in the same judgment at paragraph 79, grant of solatium and interest has been upheld as in the circumstances of that particular case there was delay of 16 years when no Arbitrator was appointed and for such relay caused, the awardees suffered in getting their just compensation. 14. 14. Relying on Hari Krishna Khoslas Case, several other judgments have also been passed by the Apex Court. Reference may be made to in that respect 1995 Supp. (4) S.C.C. 221 Prabhu Dayal and Ors. V/s. The Union of India, wherein it was held that although there as no provision for solatium or interest under the Act, it when there was delay in appointment of Arbitrator for five years then the claimants-awardees are entitled solatium in equity. The Supreme Court in that case further held that when there was delay in appointment of Arbitrator when there is stiff rise in the price between the date of requisition and the process of acquisition in the at value of the acquired land and when the Union of is caused delay in appointing the Arbitrator then even if the Act is silent about the solatium and interest, the claimants-awardees are entitled to the same on the principle of equitable relief. Previous to this judgment, there was another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Goswami V/s. Collector of Darrang A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1214. That case arose out of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, it was held by the Supreme Court that although the Act is silent about solatium and interest but when the Land Acquisition Act under Sec. 23 provides payment of solatium, such solatium must be made available under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act also. Again, in the case of Abhay Singh Swans and Ors. V/s. Secretary Ministry of Communication and Ors. -- , the Apex Court held after considering Satinder Singhs case -- that under Sec. 8 of the Act, interest on compensation is an entitlement of the claimants. In the case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. -- . it was held by the Supreme Court that solatium and interest under the Act is not permissible when there is no provision in the Act for paying so. The Court was dealing with Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 and while dealing with the provision of Secs. V/s. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. -- . it was held by the Supreme Court that solatium and interest under the Act is not permissible when there is no provision in the Act for paying so. The Court was dealing with Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 and while dealing with the provision of Secs. 23(1-A) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court held that omission in the Act of 1968 was deliberate not to make the owner entitled for solatium and interest and on equitable consideration also can not be allowed when the statute under which the property was acquired expresses a contrary intention. In this case, the Court considered the action of Hari Krishan Khosla case and that of Satinder Singh case (supra). According to the Court the decision arrived at in this case are not conflicting nor does the Hari Krishan Khosla case have over ruled Stainder Singh case as the principle remained the same that under the Act there was no scope of grant of solatium and interest when the Act is silent in that respect and the analogy of Land Acquisition Act can not be made applicable. In this case, the Court has gone to further step ahead by holding that there was no scope of holding that in the circumstances of a case equitable consideration can come into play when the Act expresses a contrary intention. On close scrutiny of the judgment, it could be found that under the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, there is specific guide line as to how the compensation as to be assessed which is totally silent in the 1952 Act. Under the 1952 Act, only mention is with regard to "just compensation" so there can not be any contrary intention. Regarding the omission of solatium and interest, the Supreme Court has held in this judgment that nowhere Satinder Singh case or Hari Krishna Khosla case had been any contrary view. This judgment has been delivered by Hon ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy for and on behalf of the Court and his Lordship was also a party in the order passed in the case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Sher Singh and Anr. This judgment has been delivered by Hon ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy for and on behalf of the Court and his Lordship was also a party in the order passed in the case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Sher Singh and Anr. -- , where in also it was held that the Arbitrator has got no jurisdiction to fix solatium and interest as it is not the part of compensation. In the case of Prabhu Dayal and Ors. V/s. Union of India (supra), Hon ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy was also party and therein on the ground of delay in appointment of Arbitrator claimants were held to be entitled for solatium in equity. In the case of Union of India V/s. Ajaib Singh and Ors. -- , the same Bench of Hon ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik held that when there is delay on the part of the State or Union of India in appointment of Arbitrator the claimants were entitled to solatium and interest considering the principle as laid down under Secs. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . 15. Taking the ratio of all the above mentioned judgment of the Apex Court, it can be formulated in the following manner:- - Under the Act of 1952, when there is no provision of solatium and interest then it must be held that ordinarily there is no jurisdiction of the Arbitrator of the Court to grant Solatium and interest on the compensation assessed as Rule as per Secs. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and when there is omission in the Act, 1952, then it must be held that omission was premeditated and with intention. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and when there is omission in the Act, 1952, then it must be held that omission was premeditated and with intention. The analogy might be that when there was already requisition long back and the claimants were getting rates as per the requisition then it is not the case that the possession is being taken by the authorities at the time of acquisition rather possession had already been vested with the State/Union of India long back and at the time of acquisition only just compensation can be paid to the claimants as the possession is not being taken in advance as is done in the case of Land Acquisition Act but still then there remains the scope of playing the principle of equity in the field if it could be found that in making compensation and when objection is being raised the appropriate authority slept over the matter for along period in referring the matter to the Arbitrator, and then solatium and interest can be paid to the awardees claimants. In the present case, applying the said principle, it could be found that although the compensation was assessed at a very low rate long back and the claimants-appellants took objection in the matter and asked for referring the matter to the Arbitrator but the same had not been done and the claimants had to come up in the writ petition before this Court and then there was direction by this Court for appointment of Arbitrator but then also was not done by the Union of India le., respondents and then the claimants had to come up contempt petitions before this Courts then and then only the Arbitrator could be appointed. The requisition took in the yea 1985 and the Arbitrator was appointed in the year 1992 le., seven years had elapsed, for the employee on the part of the Union of India in appointing the Arbitrator and such Arbitrator was appointed only at the direction of this Court as the Central Government was not in a mood to comply with the mandatory provision of Sec. 8 of the Act. The learned Arbitrator had considered those aspects and after considering different rulings had awarded interest and solatium in the nature and circumstances of the case. Solatium has been granted at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 12%. The learned Arbitrator had considered those aspects and after considering different rulings had awarded interest and solatium in the nature and circumstances of the case. Solatium has been granted at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 12%. 16 It is submitted by Mr. Mehta, appearing for and on behalf of the appellants that practically solatium and interest as granted is not at par with the mandatory provision of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, amendment of Land Acquisition Act was already in force regarding increase of rate or solatium and interest, then the Arbitrator ought to have granted solatium 30% and interest @ 15%. I have already held that analogy of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act can not be made applicable to the claimants in the present case but when there was delay in appointment of Arbitrator then on the equitable principle, the appellants are entitled to interest and solatium and the same has rightly been granted by the learned Arbitrator. While admitting these appeals, this Court passed order for payment of awarded amount by the respondents to the claimants-appellants but the same was not paid and then contempt petitions were filed being M.J.C. Case Nos. 286 and 288 of 1997 (R) and in arose M.J.C. cases ultimately the Union of India had made payment although belatedly and, as such, those contempt petitions were dropped. 17. Thus, these two Misc. Appeals le., M.A. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1994 (R) have got no force and, as such, dismissed. 18. In respect of Misc. Appeal No. 132 of 1994 (R) objection has been raised at the very out set form the side of the respondents le., the appellants of other two appeals that this appeal is not maintainable on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner have got no jurisdiction to file the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority under the Act for the purpose of acquisition/requisitioning and practically, the Deputy Commissioner does so for and on behalf of the Union of India and he was also made party in the arbitration proceeding. But the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Act cannot represent the Union of India for the purpose of appeal unless it could be shown that the has been authorized so to proceed with the appeal for Union behalf of the Union of India. But the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Act cannot represent the Union of India for the purpose of appeal unless it could be shown that the has been authorized so to proceed with the appeal for Union behalf of the Union of India. From the case title of the appeal, it could be found that the Deputy Commissioner on his own capacity as Competent Authority has filed the appeal. It has never been mentioned that he was authorized for representing the Union of India under the Act. In that view of the matter, the appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 132 of 1994-R) can be said to be non-competent. I find some in the submission of Mr. Mehta, for the on behalf of the appellants-claimants. 19. The main objection in this appeal is with regard to the solatium and interest as granted by the learned Arbitrator which has already been dealt with by me in the foregoing paragraphs while decision two other appeals i.e., M.A. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1994 (R) which were heard analogously with this appeal. Another ground has been taken regarding discarding of Exhibit A/1 and A/5 certified copy of sale deeds which were in favour of non-aboriginals by the originals as there violation of Sec. 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 20. According to Mr. Chandra, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 132 of 1994 (R), Such discarding is improper as Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act was not constitutionally valid at the relevant time but this point has already been set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court in which was also a party in the case of Mathura Singh V/s. Tetali Bom and Ors. 1996 (2) A.L.J.R. 260 and as such, rightly these sale deeds had not been taken into consideration by the Arbitrater as those sale deeds were hit by the provision of Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act. 21. Thus, this appeal [M.A. No. 132 of 1994 (R)] has also got no force and hence the same is also dismissed. 22. No cost is awarded to either of the parties.