A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SHER SINGH AND ANR.
APRIL 15, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 :
S.tr-Award of Arbitrator-Award of solatiwn and interesHfe/d, Ar-
C bitrator devoid of jwisdiction to award interest and solatium.
Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 149, relied
on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7668 of
D 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.90 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in L.P.A. No. 444 of 1990.
Mrs. Indira Sawhney for C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur, for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated April 5, 1990
of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in LPA
No. 444/90. The Land of the respondents, along with others, admeasuring
50.55 acres situated in village Behar Tehsil, Pathankot was requisitioned
G and subsequently acquired for defence purposes under the Requisition and
Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952 (for short, the 'Act'). The
Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation at Rs. 201 per
canal. When an application was made by the respondents under Section 8
of the Ac~ the arbitrator in his award dated December 6, 1986 determined
H
the compensation at Rs. 1,000 per canal. He also awarded solatium @ 30%
336
U.0.!. v. SHER SINGH
337
and interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking A
possession and @ 15% thereafter till date of deposit. When challenged,
the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed
by the Divisions Bench. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The only question that arises for consideration is: whether the
respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest awarded B
by the arbitrator? The Court in Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla,
[1993] Supp. 2 SCC 149 held that the claimants are not entitled to the
solatium and interest since the Act does not provide for the payment
thereof. On the last occasion when the matter had come up for hearing,
this Court passed an order on March 25, 1996 directing the appellants to C
produce the record of K-Form. A letter dated December 19, 1995 has been
placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants stating that the
respondents have not received the amount under protest nor have they
made any application for appointment of arbitrator within the stipulated
period. We need not go into the question as regards the appointment of
the arbitrator for determination of the compensation against the award of D
the Land Acquisition Officer since that order has become final. The only
question is: whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest?
Learned counsel for the respondents sought to contend that the Act
provides for determination of just compensation. All the three components E
form part of the determination of just compensation and that, therefore,
the award passed by the arbitrator does not warrant interference. We find
no force in the contention. Determination of just compensation is with
reference to the value of the land acc1uired under the Act. Since the
payment of solatium and interest is in addition to the compensation deter-
mined under the Act, this Court in Hari Kishan Khosla's case (supra) and
held that the arbitrator is devoid of jurisdiction to award solatium and
interest. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in
upholding payment of solatium and interest.
F
The appeal is allowed to the extent of awarding of solatium and G
interest and with respect lo determination of compensation @ Rs. 1,000
per canal the order of the High Court stands upheld. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex