Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 216 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. Inder

2005-02-08

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 454 and 455 of 1982 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The facts are, however, being taken from F.A.O. No. 454 of 1982. 2. Land of the respondents was sought to be acquisitioned by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot vide J Notice No. 27/PB/4342/ACQ/SLAC dated 11.1.1971, published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 6.8.1971. The total area which was acquired by the above notice was 188 Kanals and 9 Marlas. The Special Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 210/- per Kanal. 3. The Governor of Punjab appointed an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(c) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") published in Punjab Government notification No. 11/32/31-5 Judl/PB/5342/ACQ/ 22019 dated 31.12.1981, for the purpose of making the award determining the amount of compensation in respect of the land acquisitioned by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. The arbitrator vide award dated 22.4.1982 determined compensation of the land at the following rates: Rs. 500/- per Kanal for barani land; Rs. 300/- per Kanal for Banjar and Qadim land; Rs. 150/- per Kanal for Gair Mumkin land. 4. Besides awarding the above said compensation, the arbitrator also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation assessed and also interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the excess amount i.e. the amount not paid from the date of acquisition till the actual date of payment of deposit. 5. The Union of India has filed these appeals challenging the award, insofar as it relates to awarding the solatium and interest by the arbitrator. 6. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents. 7. I have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and have gone through the record. Mr. Parveen Goel, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that the arbitrator erred in awarding solatium and interest as there is no provision in the Act for awarding the same. The counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Hari Khosla (Dead) By LRs, 1993 Supp.(2) Supreme Court Cases 149, in support of his submission. In reported case, the Apex Court in paras 61, 62 and 63 held as under:- "61. The counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Hari Khosla (Dead) By LRs, 1993 Supp.(2) Supreme Court Cases 149, in support of his submission. In reported case, the Apex Court in paras 61, 62 and 63 held as under:- "61. We are of the opinion that the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement under Section 8(1)(b). In the absence of such an agreement it is left to the discretion of the arbitrator. The arbitrator under Section 8(1)(e) is to hear the dispute. Thereafter, he is to determine the compensation which appears to him to be just. He must have regard to the circumstances of each case while applying the provisions of Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 8 which reads as under:- "8.(3). The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under Section 7 shall be - (a) the price which the requisition property would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition, or (b) * * * * 62. In our view, the significant omission of solatium is indicative of the legislative intent necessitating stress of the expression "just" and "circumstances of each case" occurring in Sub-section (1)(e) thereof. 63. Yet another distinguishing feature is the expression "open market". The reason why solatium has not been provided is that "open market" contemplates a bargain between a free buyer and a free seller unfettered by the consideration of requisition and consequential acquisition." It was further held: "the failure to provide solatium at 15 per cent or interest at 6 per cent under Section 8(3)(a) of the Act does not make it discriminatory." 8. From the above observations, it would thus be seen that the Apex Court ruled that where there is no provision in the Act for grant of solatium and interest the claimants were not entitled for the same. 9. From the above observations, it would thus be seen that the Apex Court ruled that where there is no provision in the Act for grant of solatium and interest the claimants were not entitled for the same. 9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court noticed above, these appeals are allowed and the award of the arbitrator is set aside to the extent it has awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation assessed and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the excess amount i.e. the amount not paid so far, from the date of acquisition till the amount of compensation has been actually paid or deposited.