Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 944 (PNJ)

Shrimati Maha Devi v. Union Of India

2009-05-15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two First Appeals against order dated 6.12.1986 bearing Nos. 142 of 1987 and 252 of 1987 filed by the appellants. Since identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being decided by this common judgment. The facts, however, are taken from FAO No. 142 of 1987. 2. Land measuring 47 kanals 5 marlas belonging to the appellants in FAO. No. 142 of 1987 and 99 kanals 16 marlas belonging to the appellant in FAO No. 252 of 1987, situated in the revenue estate of village Bungal, Tehsil Pathankot, was acquired under Section 7 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act No. XXX of 1952 (for short, the Act) vide J. Notice No. 116/LAC dated 22.2.1970, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 06.3.1970. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) vide his assessment order dated nil (Ex.R-7) evaluated the acquired land @ Rs. 210/- per kanal for barani, @ Rs. 105/- per kanal for banjar qadim and @ Rs. 62.50 per kanal for gair mumkin. 4. Provoked by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector, the appellants filed an application under Section 8 of the Act for re- determination of fair market value of the acquired land. 5. In order to determine the value of the acquired land, the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, was appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act. The appellants and the respondents led their oral as well as documentary evidence in respect of their respective claims. The Arbitrator vide his award dated 06.12.1986 redetermined the compensation @ Rs. 500/- per kanal for barani land, Rs. 300/- per kanal for banjar qadim land and Rs. 150/- per kanal for gair mumkin land and also awarded solatium @ 30% along-with interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent year till realization of the amount of compensation as provided in Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. 6. Still aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the appellants have come up before this Court. 6. Still aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the appellants have come up before this Court. In FAO No. 142 of 1987, an application bearing CM.No. 1542-CII of 1987 under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,(in short, -C.P.C-) was moved by the appellant in which it has been alleged that on the same date i.e. 06.12.1986, the same Arbitrator gave three other awards arising out of the same acquisition dated 28.2.1970. However, the claimants in the other three arbitration cases have been allowed compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 1000/- per kanal whereas the applicant/appellants have been allowed compensation at rates varying from Rs. 500/- per kanal to Rs. 150/- per kanal. Along-with the application a copy of judgment disposing of Arbitration Case No. 94 of 1986 was also attached as Annexure A-1. The said case was taken upon 26.3.1987, in which the following order was passed -- "Present - Shri M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Miss. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Notice. Civil Misc. to be heard with the main case." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that this application may now be considered and allowed in terms of the order passed on 26.3.1987. 8. Mr. Ram Chander,leamed counsel for the respondents has submitted that this application should not be allowed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in respect of application for additional evidence, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed in terms of Order 41 Rule 27(A)(b) of C.P.C. Thus, the application is allowed and document Ex. A-1 is taken on record and is being considered on merits. 10. Mr. Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants has then argued that acquisition which forms part of the order Annexure.A-1 also pertains to the same village and same notification, however, the Arbitrator has awarded Rs. 1000/- per marla at a flat rate while disposing of the case of Sher Singh (Annexure A-l), whereas in the present case, compensation has been awarded in different categories which is on a very lower side. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the award Annexure. A-l has been further upheld by this Court in LPA No. 444 of 1990. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the award Annexure. A-l has been further upheld by this Court in LPA No. 444 of 1990. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court was dismissed. Insofar as the market value is concerned, that has been upheld up to the Supreme Court. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sher Singh, 1996(2) RRR 622-1996(4) SCC 549. 11. Mr. Ram Chander, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this fact that the land involved in award Annexure A-l is of the same village having been acquired on the same date when the land of the appellants had been acquired. He could not dispute that the matter has reached up to the Supreme Court and Rs. 1000/- per marla has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 12. However, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appellants are not entitled to the amount of 30% solatium and 9% per annum interest for the first year and 15% interest per annum for the subsequent years till the date of realization of the amount of compensation as provided in Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act. 1984 as awarded by the Arbitrator. He further contends that the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) andothersv. The Union of lndia and an other AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 74 in favour of grant of solatium and interest has already been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs., 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 149, wherein it has been held that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award solatium and interest as the Act is totally silent in this regard. He further contends that the view expressed in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs (supra) has been further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Chajju Ram (Dead) By LRs and others, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 682- (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 568 and Dayal singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 787 - (2003)2 Supreme Court Cases 593. In answer to this submission, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that since the award of the Arbitrator has not been challenged by the Union of India (respondent) by way of a separate appeal, therefore, they are not entitled to raise the aforesaid plea. Moreover, it is further submitted that if the respondents are allowed to take the aforesaid plea and the same is considered, even then admittedly the Arbitrator has been appointed after 16 years as the arbitration caseNo. is 75 of 1986, where the land in question was acquired in 1970, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Ors., 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 894 - 2009(2) RAJ 1- JT 2008(12) SC 611, the appellants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on equitable grounds. 13. Insofar as the question as to whether the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to award solatium and interest under the Act, is concerned, this question has been settled by the Supreme Court that the same cannot be awarded. Now the question is that whether the respondents can take this plea despite the fact that no appeal has been filed by them against the award of the Arbitrator. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C and has submitted that the Appellate Court has power to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents, or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. 14. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the appellants cannot be granted solatium and interest on the principal amount that has been awarded by the Arbitrator as it has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court that if the Act is silent for grant of solatium and interest, then the same cannot be awarded. 14. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the appellants cannot be granted solatium and interest on the principal amount that has been awarded by the Arbitrator as it has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court that if the Act is silent for grant of solatium and interest, then the same cannot be awarded. However, I have found that in this case, the Arbitrator was appointed after 16 years of the date of acquisition, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parmal Singh (supra), I am inclined to award 6% per annum interest to the appellants on equitable grounds. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed to the extent that they would be entitled to the compensation of their land @ Rs. 1000/- per marla along-with 6% per annum interest from the date of acquisition till the date of actual payment. It is, however, clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to 30% solatium along-with 9% interest per annum for the first year and 15% per annum forthe subsequent years till the realization of the amount of compensation as held by the learned Arbitrator. It is further ordered that the appellants shall be entitled to the costs of the appeals.