DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 26-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 12 S.C.R. 1059 
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9198-9202 OF 2010) 
' 
OCTOBER 26, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property 
Act, 1952: 
Solatium and interest - Acquisition of land under the Act 
- Delay of 16 years in appointment of arbitrator- Held: Award 
A 
B 
c 
of solatium and interest is justified as there was an inordinate 
delay in the appointment of an arbitrator and consequent 
delay in determination of compensation payable to the land 
0 
owners. 
Compensation - Enhancement of - Acquisition of large 
extent of land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot for defence 
purposes under the Act - The enhancement of compensation 
was considered by High Court in a similar case for acquisition 
E 
of land arising out of the very same acquisition process - In 
that case, High Court enhanced the compensation payable 
to the land-owners to Rs.350/- per maria - The said order was 
not challenged and attained finality - The lands in question 
were all acquired for the very same purpose and were situated 
F 
on the outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot - The growing 
rion-agricu/ture potential of such lands was a/so not disputed 
-
Therefore, there was no reason why the amount of 
compensation payable to the landowners m the instant case 
should also not be enhanced to Rs. 350/- per maria with 
G 
proportionate benefits to1•.tards solatium and interest. 
A large extent of land situate in the outskirts of 
Pathankot in the State of Punjab and underlying different 
1059 
H 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A survey numbers was acquired for defence purposes 
under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition 
of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The parties failed to 
arrive at an agreement as to the amount of compensation 
payable to the expropriated owners of the land in 
B question. The land owners requested for the appointment 
of an arbitrator for determining the amount payable to 
them. The Government did not respond to the request. 
The land owners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus 
to the Government to appoint an arbitrator. The High 
C Court directed the Government to appoint an arbitrator. 
An arbitrator was appointed 16 years after the acquisition 
of land. The arbitrator held that the owners were entitled 
to compensation that ranged between Rs.50 per maria for 
one batch of appeals to Rs.200 for the other batch of 
0 appeals. Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first 
year and 15% for the subsequent years till payment of the 
amount of compensation was also held payable to the 
landowners. Both, the Union of India and the land 
owners, challenged the award made by the arbitrator 
before the High Court. The plea of the Union of India was 
E that the arbitrator was not justified in awarding nor was 
there any provision for granting solatium and interest 
under the Act. The land-owners prayed for enhancement 
of compensation payasble to them to Rs.500/- per maria. 
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union 
F of India. The cross-objections filed by the owners were 
also dismissed by separate orders unsupported by any 
reasons for denying the enhancement prayed for by 
them. Relying upon the decision in Jagdish Prasad v. The 
Competent Authority, the High Court held that award of 
G compensation @ Rs.150/- per maria was justified on a 
uniform basis for all kinds of lands. It also held that the 
award of solatium and interest was justified having 
regard to the delay on the part of the government in 
H 
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &1061 
ORS. 
appointing an arbitrator. The High Court, however, opined 
A 
that instead of describing the amount as solatium and 
interest, the same should be described as compensation 
for the acquired lands. Aggrieved, the Union of India and 
the land owners filed the instant appeals. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In lnder Singh's case, the High Court upheld 
the grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar 
acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in 
January 1970. While doing so, the High Court relied upon 
C 
its decision in Shanker Singh's case. The decision in lnder 
Singh's case and Shanker Singh's case was not challenged 
by filing any appeal. In that view of the matter and having 
regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 
16 years in the appointment of an arbitrat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.