SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) GENERAL, HYDERABAD versus B. CHANDRA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 16-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SPECIAL DEPUlY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) GENERAL, 
A 
-~ 
HYDERABAD 
v. 
B. CHANDRA REDDY AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
"-< 
Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952: 
Land acquisition-Authority fixing compensation.@ Rs. 4,0001- per acre- c 
Non-acceptance by land owners-Appointment of an arbitrator-Awarding 
compensation @ Rs. 9,000/- per acre, solatium @ 30% per annum and 
interest @ 6% per annum-Execution of award-Held: Once an award was 
passed validity of which was never under challenge, a public authority ought 
to have acted in accordance with the directions issued in the award and 
should have made the payment-Jn the present case, since payment was not D 
made, claimants approached the High Court for directions for payment in 
terms of the award-Single Judge directing the authorities for payment-
' 
Appeal filed against the order was dismissed on ground of delay as well as 
J 
on merits-Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case for this Court to 
interfere with, in exercise of discretionary power under Article 136 of the E 
Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
Respondents-claimants were the land owners whose land was 
requisitioned for defence purpose by the Central Government. The Competent 
Authority offered compensation to the land-owners at the rate of Rs. 4000/-
per acre. They did not accept the amount of compensation as offered and the F 
case was referred to an Arbitrator in terms of provisions under the 
Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act. The Arbitrator 
awarded compensation @Rs. 9000/- per acre to the land-owners. In addition, 
solatium @ 30% per annum and interest@ 6% per annum have also been 
awarded. The amount was not paid by the authorities. The claimants 
approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition for issuing appropriate G 
directions to the authorities. A Single Judge of the High Court issued 
tJ.. 
necessary directions to the authorities for payment of the amount within sixty 
days. Writ Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
163 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant contended that the Arbitrator had committed an error of law 
and of jurisdiction in granting solatium and interest; that solatium and 
y. 
interest can only be granted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not 
under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act under 
which acquisition has been made by the appellant; and that neither the 
B 
Arbitrator could have ordered payment of solatium and interest to the 
claimants nor the High Court could have issued the direction to pay such 
amount. 
Respondents-claimants submitted that even if this Court is of the view 
,., 
that the award passed by the Arbitrator was not strictly in accordance with 
c 
law, it may not exercise discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 
136 of the Constitution; that considering the fact that the award was passed 
in 1991, that it was never challenged by the Land Acquisition Officer it had 
attained finality. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Land Acquisition 
Officer to comply with the directions in the award in the award and to pay the 
amount. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The offer of amount as compensation by the Competent 
Authority under the Requisitioning and Acquisition oflmmovable Property 
Act had not been accepted by the claimants and theY. opted for appointment of 
E Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property 
Act. An Arbitrator was appointed and Arbitration Case was registered. Award 
was made by the Arbitrator even though it was asserted by the appellant at 
one stage before this Court that the award was not final and an appeal wa~ 
filed against it. Subsequently it was admitted that no such appeal had been 
filed and the award had attained finality. On the contrary, record revealed that 
F on the basis of the award in which solatium and interest was granted by the 
Arbitrator, other land-owners had also claimed the similar benefit of solatium 
and interest which was allowed. Therefore, the claimants are right in 
submitting that once an award was passed, validity of which was never under 
challenge, a public authority ought to have acted in accordance with directions 
G 
issued in the award and should have made the payment. 
[Para 24] 

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