Union of India (UOI) and Another vs Sher Singh and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 22 kanals 17 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 193 and 188 of Rectangle No. 219 situated in Village Barsoon, was acquired by Union of India for defence purposes by issuance of a notification dated 22.12.1969 published in Punjab Government Gazette dated 9.1.1970, u/s 7 of the Rehabilitation and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, ''the Act'').

The claimants were not satisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, they sought appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The State Government vide Notification No. 22/86-5-H (V)/27554 dated 11.9.1987, appointed learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, as an Arbitrator, to determine the amount of compensation and to specify the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid. The period of announcing the award was subsequently extended by the State Government vide letter No. 22/6/86-5-HV/12507-10 dated 25.4.1988 till 24.9.1988.The claimants prayed for compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per marla for land. Rs. 50,000/- for the standing trees and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the house built upon the land in question.

The Arbitrator vide his award dated 10.9.1988 gave uniform rate of Rs. 50/- per marla alongwith solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment.

Union of India has come up in appeal against the order dated 10.9.1988 passed by the Arbitrator.

The present appeal was admitted on 21.11.1989 and the following order was passed:

Admitted.

Execution of the decree is stayed on the condition that the appellant shall deposit the compensation amount within six months. The amount of compensation may be disbursed by the District/Additional District Judge on furnishing security by the claimants. The security should be accepted after due notice to the Counsel for the Union of India.

Mr. Ram Chander, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are aggrieved only against the award of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment on the ground that the Act is silent about the payment of solatium and interest and there is no provisions under the Act. He further contends that the Arbitrator has awarded solatium and interest on the strength of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) and Ors. v. The Union of India and Anr. (1974) 76 P.L.R. 658, which has been reversed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by Lrs., . He further contends that the law laid in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Chajju Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, and Dayal Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

I have perused the record and thoughtfully considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. It is now well settled that the Act is silent in respect of grant of solatium and interest. In the afore-stated cases decided by the Apex Court, namely Hari Krishan Khosla and Chajju Ram (supra), it has been held that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award solatium and interest.

However, in the case of Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Ors. J.T. 2008 (12) S.C. 611, the Apex Court has granted 6% interest per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit on equitable grounds after taking into consideration the law enunciated in Satinder Singh and Others Vs. Amrao Singh and Others, and Hirachand Kothari (Dead) by Lrs Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, .

In the present case, the land was requisitioned for defence purposes in the year 1969. The Arbitrator was appointed in 1989 after 18 years, therefore in my view, the respondents shall not be entitled to solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator but shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit on equitable grounds in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Parmal Singh (supra).

With this modification, the present appeal is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.