LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus AJAIB SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
AJAIB SINGH AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.]
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 :
Compensation-Enhancement of-Award of Solatium and interest by
Arbitrato1~Validity of
In respect of certain land acquired, the competent authority awarded
compensation @Rs. 60 per Marla. After a long lapse of time, the question
A
B
c
of compensation was referred to an arbitrator, who enhanced the compen-
sation to a flat rate of Rs. 300 per Marla and awarded solatium @30% per
annum and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter @ D
15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of possession of
the property.
Against the award, Government preferred appeals to the High Court.
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench dismissed the appeals. Hence
these appeals.
E
Partly allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. The arbitrator was in error in allowing solatium and
interest without coming to a decision as to the existence of any dispute
and the failure of the Government to refer the matter to an arbitrator. The F
order relating to payment of solatium and interest is set aside. [835-A)
2. It has not been established on behalf of the respondent that there
was any delay in the appointment of arbitrator on the part of the appellant.
There is nothing to show that the respondents had demanded appointment
of arbitrator or had disputed the amount of compensation paid by the G
Special Land Acquisition Collector. It is true that arbitrator was ultimate-
ly appointed at. the instance of the respondent. But there is nothing to
indicate that the respondents had earlier disputed the amount of compen-
sation or had demanded appointment of arbitrator. There is no dispute
that the compensation was accepted. It is for the respondents to establish H
831
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
that it was accepted under protest. These facts have not been established
by the respondents. (834-E-F]
B
c
D
E
3. There had been no delay on the part of the Government in
referring the matter to an arbitrator. It has not been stated by the
respondents that they had demanded appointment of an arbitrator, when
they found that the compensation amount was inadequate. No letter or any
other document has been annexed to the writ petition or produced before
this Court in support of the case of the respondents. (834-G-HJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-36
of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.90 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in L.P.A. No. 250-251 of 1990.
N.N. Goswamy, W.A. Qadri and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
R.C. Pathak for the Respondent Nos. 2-5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. Special leave granted.
This is a case of acquisition of land under the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The short question that falls
for determination is whether the arbitrator had erred in enhancing the
amount of compensation to the flat rate of Rs. 300 per Marla and awarding
solatium @30% per annum and interest @9% per annum for the first year
F
and thereafter 15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of
possession of the property.
Land measuring 26.08321 acres in village Daulatpur, Tehsil
Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired under the Requisitioning and
G acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 by the Special Land Acquisi-
tion Collector by a notification issued on 30th October, 1969. The com-
petent authority awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 60 per
Marla. After a long lapse of time, the question of compensation was
referred to an arbitrator.
H
Mr. Goswami, on behalf of the appellants, has argued that there was
{
,
U.0.1. v. ATAIB SINGH [SEN,J.]
833
no dispute as to the quantum of compensation between the respondents A
and the appellants and the compensation was actually paid to the respon-
dents and the respondents duly accepted the compensation without any
protest. Under Rule 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Rules, 1953, the competent authority can pay compensation only
after entering into an agreement in Form-K. Mr. Goswami has contended B
that in the instant case, compensation was paid. There was no dispute as
to the quantum of compensation. An agreement in Form-K was entered
into with the respondents before payment of the compensation. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.